News Flash: fat makes you fat

[Cobra_Commander]

Starbucks in fat lawsuit:

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticl...C1-ArticlePage2

[SmallShoes]

The union contends that Starbucks staff gain weight when they work at the chain. They are offered unlimited beverages and leftover pastries for free during their shifts.

 

And they were forced down employee's throats with a bilge pump.

[JayB]

Starbucks in fat lawsuit:

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticl...C1-ArticlePage2

 

Anyone know if the original suit against KFC has gone before a judge yet? Didn't the last lawsuit against McDonald's that was brought on this basis get thrown out of court?If anyone ever wins a suit like this, the entire country will be one step closer to involuntary membership in NAAFA.

 

"WHY SHOULD I SUPPORT NAAFA?

 

An estimated 38 million Americans are significantly heavier than average, and face societal and institutional bias because of their size. Fat people are discriminated against in employment, education, access to public accommodations, and access to adequate medical care. In addition, fat people are stigmatized, and are the victims of tasteless jokes and assaults on their dignity. Despite evidence that 95-98% of diets fail over three years, our thin-obsessed society continues to believe that fat people are at fault for their size.

 

NAAFA is the only national membership organization fighting to end size discrimination, educating the public, and working to empower fat people. People all sizes of large should support NAAFA's work in combating size discrimination. People of average size who believe that size discrimination is wrong should ally themselves with the size acceptance movement.

 

BUT ISN'T IT UNHEALTHY TO BE FAT?

 

Just being fat does not signify poor health. In fact, research shows that the health risks once associated with weight may instead by attributable to yo-yo dieting. Because fatness is most often caused by heredity and dieting history, and because 95-98% of all diets fail over three years, it is becoming apparent that remaining at a high, but stable weight and concentrating on personal fitness rather than thinness may be the healthiest way to deal with the propensity to be fat.

 

We must also consider that in our society, it is very difficult for fat people to stay healthy and become fit. Due to prejudicial medical treatment and harassment by health care professionals, many fat people do not receive adequate preventative health care, and procrastinate seeking treatment when there is a medical problem. In addition, many fat people do not feel comfortable participating in activities that would lead to a greater level of fitness due to social stigma.

 

People of all sizes can strive for fitness by making sensible food choices, following an exercise program, and getting regular check-ups.

 

WHY DO WE USE THE WORD "FAT" SO FREELY?

 

"Fat" is not a four-letter word. It is an adjective, like short, tall, thin, or blonde. While society has given it a derogatory meaning, we find that identifying ourselves as "fat" is an important step in casting off the shame we have been taught to feel about our bodies."

 

HOW TO JOIN NAAFA

 

http://www.naafa.org/"

 

 

[catbirdseat]

Just being fat does not signify poor health. In fact, research shows that the health risks once associated with weight may instead by attributable to yo-yo dieting. Because fatness is most often caused by heredity and dieting history, and because 95-98% of all diets fail over three years, it is becoming apparent that remaining at a high, but stable weight and concentrating on personal fitness rather than thinness may be the healthiest way to deal with the propensity to be fat.

This is a lot of rubbish. Metabolic syndrome is caused by too much fat. Fat cells produce a factor that promotes clotting and other unhealthy effects. Just being fat is unhealthy, whether you are a fit fatty or an unfit fatty.

[JayB]

I for one think that these suits have just as much merit as the lawsuits brought against the tobacco manufacturers. I am looking forward to the day when the first class action suit is brought against crack dealers by their clientele.

[catbirdseat]

Oh, I agree with you. People have enough information to make good decisions for themselves on what to ingest.

[chirp]

We no longer sell Chantico™ drinking chocolate, what more do they want .

Its funny to watch new employees, first month they all order massive chocolate/caramel/goop infested personal drinks...as time passes they wither and end up with coffee of the day or americanos.

I have discovered that an employees work ethic is reflected in what they drink in their off time.

 

Americano partners are awesome.

Blended drink/heavy goop based drink partners suck balls.

[foraker]

People have enough information to make good decisions for themselves on what to ingest.

 

Which explains their continuing proclivity to eat deep-fried fat and to vote for thieves, lawyers, and userers to represent them in DC.

[Fairweather]

I may be the only person west of the Cascade Mountains who has never set foot in a Starbucks!

 

I just spent a few days in Mexico where the good people eat what they want, drive without seatbelts on cobblestone roads without lines. The motorcyclists don't wear helmets, everyone is welcome to ride in the back of a pickup truck, and peole are free to smoke to their heart's content - although I didn't see too many partaking - and in all of this non-mayhem I did not see one attorney's office or union hall. Did I mention everyone seemed happy too?

[Off_White]

I'm really sorry Fairweather, but someone has to say it.

 

 

Why do you hate America?

[Stonehead]

I for one think that these suits have just as much merit as the lawsuits brought against the tobacco manufacturers. I am looking forward to the day when the first class action suit is brought against crack dealers by their clientele.

Ok, my rant…

 

In the larger scheme of things, I delight in seeing the David v. Goliath contests pitting an individual against a larger entity and especially if the minority party wins, which is rarely the case. It takes almost ‘divine’ intervention for the party with lesser means to win. Everybody knows that even if you’re right, you don’t necessarily win.

 

What if some of these seemingly frivolous suits were actually brought about by the industry itself in order to discredit the legitimate claims, that it’s all part of some massive public relations game designed to influence public opinion? What if…? All that I know is that large amounts of money are channeled to PR firms. Follow the money.

 

It is legitimacy that you’re talking about? As far as the tobacco litigation, I thought this was brought about by a number of state attorney generals and in response to the burden in health care that states have to shoulder as a result of tobacco-related ailments in underinsured and uninsured patients? Haven’t government entities been the protectors of the common good and have at various times taken legal action against such public evils such as organized crime, monopolies, etc.?

 

I see that the idea of personal responsibility has inserted itself here, too. You can make a distinction between ingestion of addictive drugs and nutritional foodstuffs. Sure, of course, the individual makes the initial decision to partake but it presumes that all of us are conscious agents capable of making fully rational and mature decisions. Some of us are, some of us aren’t, and most of us waver between the sensible and the foolish. So here, you have to have an outside entity ‘protect’ some of us from ourselves. Some of us need that protection. I suppose if it got so absurd, then you could just stop going to Starbucks, KFC, whatever. It’s not infringing on your right to be free to do what you are legally entitled to. But then again, maybe we should have the freedom to fall, to stumble, to harm ourselves? Isn’t that the core issue of libertarianism?

 

There’s an interesting interview with Dr. Alexander Shulgin, the man who invented over 80% of the world’s known hallucinogenic drugs including Ecstasy. (Might be good reading for some of you.)

 

So here’s the issue rephrased again in a different context:

Like so many pro-drug advocates, Shulgin believes crime would drop and quality would improve if narcotics were legalised. I suggest one set of problems would just be replaced with another and vulnerable people would be more at risk because of ease of access.

 

“Let me ask you an adverse (sic) question,” says Ann. “Probably the one human experience that is responsible for more deaths, suicides and murders is falling in love and having the love affair break up. How do you protect vulnerable people from falling in love?”

 

Things like dealing with desire, lust, pursuit of happiness…are part of the human condition. I’d argue that no religious system in the world has succeeded in controlling society to the exclusion of these motivations. The future is transhumanism…, a cyborg future. . .

[mattp]

I have not read through this thread to see if anybody has made this point or not but, as I understand it, the reason big tobacco was held accountable was not due to their being a scapegoat for anybody's lack of self control.

 

They were shown to have hidden a great deal of information about the dangers of smoking, depriving the public of the information they needed to make an informed choice. In addition, I think there was something about how at least some companies (was it Phillip Morris?) were manipulating the nicotine levels to make their product more addictive that natural tobacco.

 

A similar argument has been used to ridicule the woman who sued McDonalds for serving coffee too hot: she has been the constant target of right-wing ridicule from folks all up in arms over a "lack of personal responsibility."

 

Stella Liebeck did in fact sue McDonald's for failing to adequately warn her of the danger in that hot cup of coffee, but the coffee was so hot it was truly dangerous and she didn't just scald herself -- she suffered third-degree burns that required skin grafts to repair. I believe she showed that McDonalds knew they were serving coffee too hot for safety (though maybe this particular cup exceeded their established standard), but they were shown to have known they were serving coffee dangerously hot but decided it was worth the risk for business reasons -- cheaper to take that risk than have people complaning the coffee is too cold when their staff are slow to serve it, perhaps?

 

If somebody can sue McDonalds for making them fat, you can bet they are going to have to show that McDonalds did more than serve food for which there was a market.

 

[JayB]

"1964

 

Negative Media and Congressional attention directed towards tobacco

 

The Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health releases a 387-page report entitled, "Smoking and Health." It concludes in unequivocal terms that cigarette smoking is causally related to lung Cancer. This initial report unleashes a series of media and governmental scrutiny of the tobacco industry. Before this time there was relatively little media and Congressional attention to the health hazards of smoking. Subsequently, the Surgeon General, the Federal Trade Commission, the FDA and the media all become involved in educating the public of the risks associated with smoking. This negative attention corresponds to changes in tobacco policy and legislation."

 

I'm sorry, Matt - but most retarded people - I am speaking literally here - were quite aware of the fact that smoking is bad for you long before any of these startling revelations came out. I was aware of the fact that smoking was bad for you no later than the age of four, and I hardly think I was especially precocious in this respect. After 1964, anyone older than about 12 who claimed not to know to that smoking was both extremely addictive and bad for your health was either an idiot or a liar - end of story. Whether or not the tobacco companies tried to convince anyone otherwise is a moot point.

 

As far as their liability with respect to health care costs borne by the public is concerned, one could make this argument with respect to any number of products. If the government feels as though a product that it is legal to produce and sell has either become too costly or hazardous, it should outlaw the product, buy out the owners of the company that produces the product at a price determined by an independent third party - and be done with it. What happened to the tobacco companies was nothing less than extortion to enable massive state seizure of private property carried forth on a dubious premise. I'm no fan of the tobacco companies, or smoking in general, but if this sort of thing can happen to one private business that's producing a perfectly legal product, then it can happen to any other.

[Fairweather]

I think Matt neglected to attach a disclaimer to his post.

[mattp]

Jay: you are right that many of us learned that tobacco was bad for you when we were children. However, that does not negate my point: tobacco was sued (and lost) not just because they sold it, but because they lied about it and manipulated people. And those lies and manipulation were found to have caused harm.

 

Would you rather we had government more actively involved in policing the tobacco industry and preventing their lying about it or their manipulating the product to make it more addictive?

 

If you are concerned about public safety it is either one way or the other:

 

(a) the industry is responsible (financially in a major way) if it does wrong (ie. lawsuits), or

 

(b) the government oversees the industry, possibly in all phases from advertising to manufacture and distribution.

 

The third choice: no liability and no government regulation means any company that can successfully sell something does so. That's great rhetoric, but an unrestricted "free market" does not work in controlling the use of dangerous products that are advertised in deceptive and clever ways, that are addictive, or that cause risks that are shared by those other than the direct users.

[Fairweather]

A few years ago my son's baseball coach was hit squarely in the face by a foul ball and his nose was literally crushed. While my wife was trying to stop the blood gushing from his wound she tried her hand at a little humor by noting that his blood was rather greasy. "Damn! Have you been stuffing your face with Oreo's and cheeseburgers today?" she asked. He just nodded that he had consumed both of these foods during the last 12 hours. The trans-fat in cake frosting, Oreo's, some fries, and baked goods is, in fact, dangerous. I don't think the public has been adequately warned. But, again, most are at least vaguely aware that certain foods will paste your arteries from the inside, out.

[Fairweather]

My heart pumps piss for tobacco companies, but don't you find it a bit strange that the same state governments who have/continue to make billions in cigarette tax revenue have the audacity to complain about the associated health-care costs they have incurred?

[JayB]

Did the tobacco companies actually lose or agree to settle after all of the states attorney generals decided to pile on?

 

The fundamental issue is whether or not people would have behaved any differently with the advantage of the tobacco companies disclosing what everyone already knew anyway. Given that smokers had the benefit of four decades of public health information, including labels on the pack, and smoking has not ceased altogether since the settlement occured - "MY God Margaret! What all of those doctors and scientists and peer reviewed studies and government warnings have been stating unequivocably since before I was born are....True! No more cigs for me!!" - we can safely conclude that the reasons that smokers continued to smoke had nothing to do with a lack of information about the risks, and everything to do with their own conscious choices.

 

And this business about smokers being victimized by higher nicotine levels might be the most pathetic argument on behalf of abicating any responsibiliy for one's actions that I've ever seen in my life. Everyone knew that cigarettes are addictive, and if you choose to repeatedly consume an addictive substance, then you are running the risk that you will become addicted. When you become addicted, your condition is ultimately the consequence of your choices. "What - you've been selling me the extra addictive kind of crack!?" Please.

 

At the end of the day, Tobacco companies were a politically unpopular group, sitting on a massive pile of money, and this made them an easy target for public confiscation of the profits that they made by selling a legal product to adults who were fully aware of the risks associated with using it. If you thought that the effects of permitting a lawsuit to proceed on the grounds that the tobacco lawsuit was based upon were going to be limited to classic bad guys like the tobacco companies, the coming wave of legal action mounted on behalf of fatasses everywhere will certainly be an eye opener for you.

 

Compulsory catastrophic insurance for all adults, with risk adjusted premiums for fat people and smokers would be a much better way to address the public health costs associated with obesity and smoking IMO.

[JayB]

My heart pumps piss for tobacco companies, but don't you find it a bit strange that the same state governments who have/continue to make billions in cigarette tax revenue have the audacity to complain about the associated health-care costs they have incurred?

 

Still more odd when you look at how the settlement money has been spent by the states.

[mattp]

Jay,

 

Why are you all for "personal responsibility" but not for "corporate responsibility?"

 

We have this legal entity called a corporation, and it works very well to shield investors from potential losses associated with what the enterprise: they stand only to lose the amount they have invested and are not ultimately responsible for any financial disaster or serious harm done by the corporation. Officers and employees can get liability insurance, or in the case of employees they can rely on respondeat superior if they were simply doing their job. Everyone involved is protected. Everyone except the victims of corporate fraud, lying, market manipulation, pollution -- you name it.

 

Which would you rather have:

 

(a) a tort system where someone can sue if they can show that the corporation actually did something wrong and that wrong caused real harm?

 

or

 

(b) government regulation of everything, including the content of cigarette adds and the temperature of coffee, in addition to automobile safety, toxic waste disposal, and air pollution standards.

 

It really has to be one or the other, or some combination of both. Clearly, we have seen that with very little financial incentive to do anything but to maximize short term profits even if business activities may be inflicting serious and long-lasting harm, business is not going to make the "right" choice. Maybe the cigarette company officials should have ended up being jailed rather than their companies sued, but that does not seem to be a popular idea with anybody involved in any business.

[foraker]

Everyone knew that cigarettes are addictive, and if you choose to repeatedly consume an addictive substance, then you are running the risk that you will become addicted.

 

Reminds me of this girl I knew who, leaving for the Irkutsk region for a month of field work, took one suitcase full of clothes and another full of chocolate.....

 

This kind of discussion reminds me of a book I once read where the main characters lived for a time in a place where no drugs of any sort were illegal. The only caveat was that you also paid for your own health insurance so if didn't have the means to bail yourself out if things got bad, you kinda died. According to the author, this encouraged people to be self-limiting and more aware of the consequences of the addictions. An intriguing idea but the initial stages of setting up such a system might be a bit messy (especially given the tendency of people here to wail "Why didn't somebody DO something?!")

[mattp]

Are you guys who are all in favor of personal responsibility going to tell me that if you bought a house and it turned out there was a crack house next door, it was your own fault because you should have spent enough time there to discover this before you bought? If you get laid off, are you going to forego unemployment? If you place your money in a bank that turns out to be a bad investment are you hoping it is covered by FDIC or do you just accept responsibility for the fact that you should have known better? If your car turns out to have an exploding gas tank, do you say “well, it was my fault: buyer beware?”

 

Do you benefit from laws requiring fair disclosure in real estate transactions, unemployment insurance “imposed” on business by law, Federal banking regulation, automobile safety standards, etc. etc.?

 

Are those who argue for personal responsibility and damn the legal liability lawyers not thinking, subconsciously if not consciously, that all the bad things are going to happen ot other people and they are suckers who deserve it?

[crackers]

Anyone know if the original suit against KFC has gone before a judge yet?

 

on it's way.

[JayB]

Matt:

 

I hardly think the suit against the tobacco companies is the best basis upon which to defend any of the principles that you are articulating.

 

It's also clear that you are conflating unlike situations. A more accurate analogy would be the case of a home buyer who disregards the results of a home inspection, sees an itemized summary of the home's faults nailed to the door, and buys the home anyway because the seller swears up and down that anyone who says there's a problem with the home is a liar.

 

Like it or not, we live in a world where adults have to asses the validity of information supplied by a variety of actors with a variety of motives, not all of whom have our best interests at heart. From my perspective, society is better served by acknowledging this reality, and doing so hardly requires the kind of accepting the kind of free for all that you are suggesting will come about if we uphold a reasonable standard of judgement and common sense in the courts.

[mattp]

OK then. We are talking about the limits of "personal responsibility" and

where government regulation is needed or where legal liability is the answer.

 

I'm glad we've at least gotten that far.

 

Now: do I understand you to say that the tobacco industry did not do anything for

which they should have been sued?

 

Or do you think the perpetrators of large-scale fraud and deceipt should have been jailed?

 

Or should the tobacco companies have been allowed to continue to foist

misinformation and manipulated products on the market without any intervention?