Attack of the Killer Oreos!

HolyWarrior · May 12, 2003, 18:46

Lawsuit seeks to ban Oreos because of dangerous fats

Quote:

Kids in California may have to give up their Oreos, if a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco public interest lawyer is successful.

The lawsuit, filed last week in Marin County superior court, seeks a ban on the black and white cookies, arguing the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat.

Stephen Joseph filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, in Marin County Superior Court last week after reading articles about the health threat posed by the artificial fat that is contained in most packaged foods but isn't listed with other the nutritional information.

The big difference between this suit and others that have targeted tobacco and McDonald's fast food is that consumers know that tobacco is bad for their health and that McDonald's food contains a lot of fat, Joseph said.

"Trans fat is not the same thing at all. Very few people know about it," he said, explaining that his suit focuses on the fact that trans fats are contained hidden dangers being marketed to children.

Joseph said he targeted Nabisco because as other major snack food sellers reduced the amount of trans fats in their products, Nabisco had not.

For God's sake, PLEASE let there be ONE sane judge in California that can laugh this assclown out of court!

Cyclotron · May 12, 2003, 18:58

Trans fats are actually quite bad for you. I didn't know about them either until a friend enlightened me.

Oerdin · May 12, 2003, 18:58

The bay area is the epicenter for stupidity and liberalism (but I repeat myself). I wish they'd make these lawyers pay the winners bills once their lawsuits get tossed out.

Cyclotron · May 12, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
The bay area is the epicenter for stupidity and liberalism

Hey! Liberalism, yes, studpidity... eh, not really. I prefer to call it righteous ignorance.

Lorizael · May 12, 2003, 19:09

Why not try to have trans fats listed in the nutrional information, instead of irrationally banning an entire food item from an entire state. Going about it the wrong way...

Japher · May 12, 2003, 19:26

Quote:

The bay area is the epicenter for stupidity and liberalism

I concur

Are they going to ban all Oreos???

Yeah, whatever, doesn't surprise me.

Dis · May 12, 2003, 21:18

well this has more merit than the McDonald's suit as well.

I did not know Oreos were so bad for you. but I don't really eat them, so it is no big deal.

DRoseDARs · May 12, 2003, 21:21

Mmm...Oreos dipped in milk... *drools*

The only reason I haven't eaten them since 2001-ish is because three batches my mom brought home from the store had "crunchy bits" INSIDE the white filling. And they weren't cookie bits either...

Horrors...

alva · May 12, 2003, 21:30

never ceases to amaze me

Tuberski · May 12, 2003, 21:31

"Me either!" Says Tuberski as he eats an Oreo Cream Pie.

ACK!

JCG · May 12, 2003, 21:35

Great, I've never been fond of Oreos anyways....

Spiffor · May 12, 2003, 22:14

I didn't know the existence of Oreos before this thread, but before bashing the SF judge, I'd like to know what are the hidden dangers of trans fat.

Don't forget there was a time where the dangers of the cigarette were unknown, and someone would get ridiculed by complaining about tobacco's health hazards.

GePap · May 12, 2003, 22:23

I though this thread was about Black republicans...

Cyclotron · May 12, 2003, 22:26

Here is a quote from the American Heart Association. Compared to some things I've read, it seems pretty mild.

Quote:

In clinical studies, trans fatty acids or hydrogenated fats tend to raise total blood cholesterol levels, but less than more saturated fatty acids. Trans fatty acids also tend to raise LDL ("bad") cholesterol and lower HDL ("good") cholesterol when used instead of cis fatty acids or natural oils. These changes may increase the risk of heart disease. It's not clear if trans fats that occur naturally have the same effect on cholesterol and heart disease as those produced by hydrogenating vegetable oils.

GePap:

History Guy · May 12, 2003, 22:27

Upon hearing the dangers of eating oreos, I herded my dogs into the shell-proof bunker outside behind the titanium steel doors, and watched and waited. I shuddered just thinking about the horror of the oreos that no doubt lurked somewhere out there, waiting to suck the life out of me with the vile trans fat...

I wait in fear.

Dis · May 12, 2003, 23:26

well this is more ambiguous than cigarrette smoke.

how can you not know cigarrette smoke is dangerous. As Dennis Miller would say: It's ****ing smoke!

Urban Ranger · May 13, 2003, 02:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
Why not try to have trans fats listed in the nutrional information, instead of irrationally banning an entire food item from an entire state. Going about it the wrong way...

However, since most people have no idea what trans fats do to you, listing it does nothing at all.

Maybe warning labels can be added, "Trans fats increase the risks of heart diseases."

Spiffor · May 13, 2003, 08:39

Dissident :

For a long time, cigarette smoke was rumored to be good for your health, and advertisements were done on this rumor to some extent. The dangers of the cig. have begun to be widely known in the 70's, not before.

And how can you not know trans fat is dangerous ? I mean, it's ****ing fat !

Really, I think we should know a bit more before bashing the "stupid liberal judge". The case may have more merit than it seems.

VJ · May 13, 2003, 08:59

The dangers of smoking were realised already in the 1930's. Cigarette industry hid up the evidence, and people were too blind to see the connection until late 1970's.

That's why major companies should pay to past users, not because cigarettes are dangerous, but because they were intentionally hiding facts, and killing millions of people.