The W
Views: 99961708
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
@796 .beats
The W - Random - First McDonalds Now Oreos
This thread has 87 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2675 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (27 total)
y4j1981
Kolbasz








Since: 1.4.03
From: Dale City, Virginia

Since last post: 1986 days
Last activity: 1926 days
#1 Posted on
Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos

SAN FRANCISCO - 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 said he filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, after reading articles that said the artificial fat is hidden in most packaged food, though consumers have no way of knowing.

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 hidden dangers being marketed to children.

Nabisco officials were not immediately available for comment. They have 30 days from the May 5 filing date to respond to the suit.

The National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites)' Institute of Medicine (news - web sites), which advises the government on health policy, said last summer that this kind of fat should not be consumed at all. It is directly associated with heart disease and with LDL cholesterol, the 'bad' kind that accumulates in arteries.

But the U.S. Department of Agriculture (news - web sites) said partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which contain trans fats, are present in about 40 percent of the food on grocery store shelves. Cookies, crackers, and microwave popcorn are the biggest carriers of trans fats, which are created when hydrogen is bubbled through oil to produce a margarine that doesn't melt at room temperature and increases the product's shelf life.

The Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) has tried to force food companies to list trans fat content with other nutritional information on food packages, but manufacturers have challenged the rule. Even food labeled "low in cholesterol" or "low in saturated fats" may have high percentages of trans fats.

Informing customers about trans fats on food labels could prevent 7,600 to 17,100 cases of coronary heart disease and 2,500 to 5,600 deaths per year, the FDA has estimated.

Joseph said he has targeted Nabisco because, while other major snack food makers have reduced the amount of trans fats in their products, Nabisco has not.

--Ok I think these lawsuits are getting a little bit out of control.

(edited by y4j1981 on 12.5.03 2014)

Your Official Sunday, April 13, 2003 Randomly Selected Wiener Of The Day!!
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on
The only thing I would say to this is that the lawsuit may be more of a means to an end instead of being a plain and simple legal case. I wouldn't be surprised if the suit disappears at the same time some sort of compromise to list trans fats on food labels appears.



and maybe I should open up my sensitive side/but really, the sensitive side sucks./I've been there./You can only imagine the kinds of sweaters they make you wear.

NWA:TNA - He's NOT Disco Inferno Anymore!.
Net Hack Slasher
Banger








Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3589 days
Last activity: 2009 days
#3 Posted on

    Originally posted by y4j1981
    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


I don't know about you guys but just reading that made my mouth water and run to the kitchen and get me about 4 of them. Oh do I love the filling creamy and that cookie crisp


Nabisco officials were not immediately available for comment.


Of course not they are too busy eating that tasty tasty black and white cookie with the fillng creamy and that cookie crisp. Yummy!




cause there's limits to our liberties.
'Least I hope and pray that there are,
cause those liberal freaks go too far.

I'll crush all opposition to me
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 10 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on

    Originally posted by y4j1981
    --Ok I think these lawsuits are getting a little bit out of control.
So are your threads!



CRZ™
TEN wins to go!
XPacArmy
Frankfurter








Since: 13.5.03
From: Woodbridge, VA

Since last post: 352 days
Last activity: 349 days
#5 Posted on
I think people are getting out of control with these lawsuits. And this case just proves it.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
#6 Posted on
How exactly is this lawsuit out of control? I'm sure people liked knowing that their houses were safer from fire when they had asbestos.

The public health is more important than the "right" to cheap, long lasting Oreos.

If putting a label on them says the trans fat % causes people to stop eating Oreos - it means that people don't want to eat potentially harmful food. The only way that they lose customers is if the people that read the label decide not to buy a product because they think it is harmful.

I don't think the solution to this problem is to keep that information from a customer. If they do that, they are basically intentionally harming that sub-group that would not be customers if they had all of the facts.

From a liability standpoint, it seems to me that they are risking more by NOT putting the trans fat contents on the box.

Of course, if they won't do it voluntarily, you have two options. One is to get the government to mandate it through legislation, the other is put pressure on the companies to make the change. I doubt an internet petition or talk show junket would be enough pressure, but maybe this lawsuit will work.

I'm glad there are people doing things like this. I just hope that Hydrox cookies don't have the trans fats as well...

(edited by Guru Zim on 13.5.03 0933)


Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.21



    Originally posted by Guru Zim[quotemidI just hope that Hydrox cookies don't have the trans fats as well...

    (edited by Guru Zim on 13.5.03 0933)



While Hyrdox is a fine product, it is not better than an Oreo. Nope.

On a related Oreo note, what's with these new backwards Oreos with chocolate filling and vanilla cookies? No sir, I don't like it.



He's Rolie Polie Olie - and in his world of curves and curls, he's the swellest kid around.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 42 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
Pieman: On a related Oreo note, what's with these new backwards Oreos with chocolate filling and vanilla cookies? No sir, I don't like it.

Political Correctness. Not only do they taste lousy, but it ruins the punchline to a damn fine joke.

FLEA



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high...

FLEA - 411WRESTLING.COM
BoromirMark
Potato korv








Since: 8.5.02
From: Milan-Ann Arbor, MI

Since last post: 272 days
Last activity: 272 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on
OREOS?!?!?!?!?!? They want to ban OREOS?!?!?!?!?!? If this friggin lawsuit gets friggin passed, I swear to god I will go on a liberal-killing rampage.



"People use freedom of speech to make up for freedom of thought, which they lack." - Kierkegaard
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on
Here is my whole take on the matter- sure Oreos are not great for you. But they have been around for decades, and we keep living longer, and longer. There is not one recorded death that can be said to be caused by Oreos. Trans-fats are not causing people to drop dead in the streets.

I think these guys should be spending their money on raising public awareness, lobbying the FDA to demand that transfat content be included in the nutritional information box, rather than turning people off by actually trying to sue to get a cookie banned.

If they were REALLY serious, why would it only be Oreos? Why not margerine, or any of the countless other food products that have transfats, and are actually consumed more regurally?

Because Oreo just released a new cookie (the whoe Ooops! thing), and they are media whores trying to steal a ride on the wave.







Still on the Shelf #8
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 12 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Here is my whole take on the matter- sure Oreos are not great for you. But they have been around for decades, and we keep living longer, and longer. There is not one recorded death that can be said to be caused by Oreos. Trans-fats are not causing people to drop dead in the streets.


And that is why they should legalize pot. I rest my case. Your witness, counsellor.



CHRISTIAN, n.
1. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
2. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
3. That guy what used to team with Edge.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard

      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Here is my whole take on the matter- sure Oreos are not great for you. But they have been around for decades, and we keep living longer, and longer. There is not one recorded death that can be said to be caused by Oreos. Trans-fats are not causing people to drop dead in the streets.


    And that is why they should legalize pot. I rest my case. Your witness, counsellor.



No complaints here. I agree 100%.

Granted, I would want it to be treated like alcohol and cigarettes, and NOT like Oreos, but I think we are on the same page there....





Still on the Shelf #8
timdrake
Polska kielbasa








Since: 17.3.02
From: Boston

Since last post: 65 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    How exactly is this lawsuit out of control? I'm sure people liked knowing that their houses were safer from fire when they had asbestos.

    The public health is more important than the "right" to cheap, long lasting Oreos.

    If putting a label on them says the trans fat % causes people to stop eating Oreos - it means that people don't want to eat potentially harmful food. The only way that they lose customers is if the people that read the label decide not to buy a product because they think it is harmful.

    I don't think the solution to this problem is to keep that information from a customer. If they do that, they are basically intentionally harming that sub-group that would not be customers if they had all of the facts.

    From a liability standpoint, it seems to me that they are risking more by NOT putting the trans fat contents on the box.

    Of course, if they won't do it voluntarily, you have two options. One is to get the government to mandate it through legislation, the other is put pressure on the companies to make the change. I doubt an internet petition or talk show junket would be enough pressure, but maybe this lawsuit will work.

    I'm glad there are people doing things like this. I just hope that Hydrox cookies don't have the trans fats as well...

    (edited by Guru Zim on 13.5.03 0933)


That's all well and good, but, seriously, who buys Oreos thinking they are healthy? When I buy them, I know they're bad for me and unhealthy, but I also know they're good. If I was more concerned with what I ate, I wouldn't buy them. Maybe I'm giving people too much credit here, but I feel like everyone knows Oreos are bad for you, whether it says it on the package or not. Plus, I don't seem to remember them advertising themselves as a healthy snack anyway.
cokeman
Chorizo








Since: 12.4.03
From: nj (back from iraq)

Since last post: 3287 days
Last activity: 3077 days
#14 Posted on

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    How exactly is this lawsuit out of control? I'm sure people liked knowing that their houses were safer from fire when they had asbestos.

    The public health is more important than the "right" to cheap, long lasting Oreos.

    If putting a label on them says the trans fat % causes people to stop eating Oreos - it means that people don't want to eat potentially harmful food. The only way that they lose customers is if the people that read the label decide not to buy a product because they think it is harmful.

    I don't think the solution to this problem is to keep that information from a customer. If they do that, they are basically intentionally harming that sub-group that would not be customers if they had all of the facts.

    From a liability standpoint, it seems to me that they are risking more by NOT putting the trans fat contents on the box.

    Of course, if they won't do it voluntarily, you have two options. One is to get the government to mandate it through legislation, the other is put pressure on the companies to make the change. I doubt an internet petition or talk show junket would be enough pressure, but maybe this lawsuit will work.

    I'm glad there are people doing things like this. I just hope that Hydrox cookies don't have the trans fats as well...

    (edited by Guru Zim on 13.5.03 0933)



All you have to do is look at the label and on it should say total fats then under it, it should say saturated fats. Then if the total fats are more then the saturated fat then that means that there are more fats in it that are unaccounted for AKA the bad fats like hydrogenated fats. Witch I believe (if I remember correctly) are the same thing as trans fats. But dont quote me on that its been I while since I took all thoughts classes



Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 199 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#15 Posted on
But don't I seem to recall so called 'Fat Free' oreos. And I'm willing to bet that those oreos have the same trans fats in them too. I don't think Oreos need to be banned, but there's no reason to be keeping consumers in the dark.

-Jag



Roxanne from The Real Cancun on being famous:
"I'd rather be known for [dancing topless with my twin sister] instead of being smart or something. There's a million people who are smart. There's only 16 of us who were in Cancun together."
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
#16 Posted on
I guess I didn't make the point very clearly. Let me try to say it differently.

Let's say that you have two variables to account for. You can choose either Yes or No for each of these two. One of them is "Eats Oreos" and the other is "Concerned about Trans Fats". With me so far?

This leads to four groups:

Group A: Does not eat Oreos, Does not care about trans fats.

Group B: Does not eat Oreos, Cares about trans fats

Group C: Eats Oreos, Does not care about trans fats

Group D: Eats Oreos, Cares about trans fats.

Ok - so in this super simplified world - there is one group of people that may not eat Oreos if they read the label and it shows the % of trans fats.

Now, in my opinion, by not providing the % of trans fats in the food, they are essentially attempting to trick group D into eating their food. They have chosen to put their profits ahead of their customers ability to make potentially important health decisions.

I can't side with a company on this one. If they choose longer shelf life over public health, they should at least have to own up to their actions on the food label.

It's not like they don't know what they are putting into the food. It should be trivial to compute this number. There isn't exactly a lot of guesswork when it comes to making mass produced food.



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    It's not like they don't know what they are putting into the food. It should be trivial to compute this number. There isn't exactly a lot of guesswork when it comes to making mass produced food.

However, Group D already knows that theyare putting themselves at singificant risk of health problems by eating Oreos. The calories, the fat, the carbs, hell even the ingreidents are all clearly listed on the side of the packaging. If you are that concerned about trans fat you're probably concerned about all of that other stuff too.

I just don't have any sympathy for people in Group D.



This is simply a reminder of the fantastic hypocrisy of many in Hollywood. They conflate robust criticism with censorship; they equate popular boycotts with government blacklists; they claim to be persecuted, while actually they have an amazing capacity to reach audiences other political activists can only dream of. And yet, when the slightest criticism directly affects them, they do all they can to shut dissent down. Instructive, isn't it? Industry honchoes who wouldn't have jobs without the right to free expression are only too eager to squash it when that speech dares to criticize them- Andrew Sullivan

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on
While I don't really have sympathy for people in Group D, I do not think it is unreasonable to list trans-fats in the Nutritional Information Box. That being said- asking for that and suing Nabisco to BAN Oreos are two different matters entirely.

The former is worth some discussion, the latter is just crazy. And there is a wide difference between the two...





Still on the Shelf #8
emma
Cherries > Peaches








Since: 1.8.02
From: Phoenix-ish

Since last post: 36 days
Last activity: 1 day
#19 Posted on
So I stroll down the hall to my pantry, & grab my bag of Oreos. (Mini-Oreo, to be specific.)

From the "Nutrition Facts" box:
Total Fat 6g
Saturated Fat 1g

From the "Ingredients" list:
Enriched flour, sugar, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, cocoa, lactose, high fructose corn syrup, corn flour, whey, salt, baking soda, soy lecithin, chocolate, vanillin.

If I am concerned with fats (trans or otherwise), I immediately spot the high fat content in the food, & I jump all over the partially hydrogenated soybean oil high up in the ingredient list. If I care, I avoid (or limit) intake based on that. There's no veiled attempt to hide anything -- the information is right there on the ingredient list.

Arbitrarily citing one reasonably reputable source ...

    Discovery (health.discovery.com)
    If the ingredients list includes partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, then the food contains trans fats. Ingredients are listed on all food packages. However, trans fats are not listed on the Nutrition Facts Panel. Since there are no standard methods for measuring trans fats, it's difficult to estimate the trans fatty acid content of food items. The FDA is considering requiring the listing of the amount of trans fat in a food on the label.


Arbitrarily singling out one company/product for a law suit has much less to do with the public good than it does with the lawyer's Marin house payments.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 12 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    While I don't really have sympathy for people in Group D, I do not think it is unreasonable to list trans-fats in the Nutritional Information Box. That being said- asking for that and suing Nabisco to BAN Oreos are two different matters entirely.

    The former is worth some discussion, the latter is just crazy. And there is a wide difference between the two...



(Oh yeah, you were on my side about the pot thing. Sorry about that - I thought I had a great arguement there.)

Yeah, but if they were just asking for trans-fats to be listed in the Nutritional Information Box, which they have, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. I don't think anyone thinks they're really going to ban Oreo cookies, or even that they should. Sometimes, you have to go that extra step to get the message out there.

Now, if they do ban them, I'll be right there with Boromir.



CHRISTIAN, n.
1. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
2. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
3. That guy what used to team with Edge.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: The Matrix: Reloaded reviewed.
Next thread: Prom...worth it?
Previous thread: Angel Season Finale
(2675 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Variety is reporting that, following the success of such talking-dog movies as Warner Bros. Pictures' CATS AND DOGS and SCOOBY DOO and the Walt Disney Co.
The W - Random - First McDonalds Now OreosRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.178 seconds.