House OKs "cheeseburger" bill barring lawsuits

[Schadenfroh]

Text

By Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday easily passed the so-called "cheeseburger bill" that would block lawsuits blaming the food industry for making people fat.

The "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" passed on a bipartisan 306 to 120 vote. The House approved a similar bill last year but it died in the Senate and no Senate action is scheduled on companion legislation.

Leading business groups and the White House back the bill. The White House in a statement said, "Food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers and sellers should not be held liable for injury because a person's consumption of legal, unadulterated food is associated with the person's weight gain or obesity."

The bill would block in state and federal courts what backers consider "frivolous lawsuits against the manufacturers, distributors or sellers of food or nonalcoholic

beverage products" arising from obesity claims. It would not block civil lawsuits stemming from tainted food.

The bill comes amid growing awareness of the public health implications of the U.S. obesity problem. But supporters of the bill said obesity and overeating should be dealt with by doctors, exercise routines and personal responsibility, not by lawyers and courts.

Democratic critics said the bill was unnecessary, that courts were throwing out such lawsuits and state legislatures were drawing up their own rules to prevent cases.

The best-known case, filed by several teenagers against McDonald's Corp., was thrown out of federal court. Part of the case was later reinstated.

Bad news, you can no longer slap a lawsuit on someone for making you fat.:roll: Sorry guys.

 

[Linflas]

John Banzhaf will be crying like a baby if this becomes law. :thumbsup:

 

[sixone]

It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

 

[digiram]

Damn, I just started my supersize campaign to get fat and sue Mcdonalds. Guess I could throw that dream down the toilet.

 

[BigJ]

It's about damn time.

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

Originally posted by: sixone
It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

Atleast they are doing something right for once.

Now, if only they did the same dang thing for videogames. An amendment to the Bill should also be added stating that Jack Thompson needs to be thrown in the looney bin.

 

[Triumph]

Hopefully the prohibition on banning gun manufacturers will pass as well. It's sad that these are even needed, but I'm all for it. :thumbsup:

 

[MattCo]

Now who are the overweight people going to blame?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Good. Why the hell the food service industry should be held accountable for someone's personal choice is beyond me. It's not as though cheeseburgers are addictive.

 

[Phoenix86]

Why can't they just pass the responsibility law? If it's not your fault, you aren't responsible.

Oh wait, that's like mandating common sense...

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Linflas
John Banzhaf will be crying like a baby if this becomes law. :thumbsup:

 

[shud]

Hey Tyrone, I got these cheeeeessseeeeburgaaassss...

 

[TheAdvocate]

P&N.

[sarcasm]I love when congress unconstitutionally supercedes federal jurisdiction. I also love it when the buck is passed completely from coprorate responsibility to individuals, instead of remaining with the comparative fault standard[/sarcasm]

It's a shame our legislature is bending over for special interest lobbies with knee jerk legislation like this. Even worse that the public stupidly endorses it.

FYI - there's also a ban on firearms suits bing passed. Sig Heil Corporate GAWDS!!

 

[Yreka]

Originally posted by: sixone
It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

zactly my first thought when I saw this..

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
P&N.

[sarcasm]I love when congress unconstitutionally supercedes federal jurisdiction. I also love it when the buck is passed completely from coprorate responsibility to individuals, instead of remaining with the comparative fault standard[/sarcasm]

It's a shame our legislature is bending over for special interest lobbies with knee jerk legislation like this. Even worse that the public stupidly endorses it.

FYI - there's also a ban on firearms suits bing passed. Sig Heil Corporate GAWDS!!

:roll:

This is not a blanket ban on lawsuits. Only a ban for suing for a specific reason.

And I find it funny how you think business deserves no protection at all. Were it not for business, you would be living in a grass hut scrounging for food.

 

[shud]

I can't wait until kids start suing their parents for Thyroid problems and fussy metabolisms.

It sounds ridiculous? You just wait. You just fcking wait. It will happen.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Actually I am a little annoyed to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation (even if it's for just a specific reason). You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

I hope the bill gets stuck down.

 

[Papagayo]

LOL..

Now the Fat People have to find someone else to blame for their fatness..

Fatties Unite...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Actually I am a little angry to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation. You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

I hope the bill gets struck down.

Hello, where have you've been?

This is now the land of Corporations, anything and everything for the almighty dollar and the Corporations at the expense of the Country and the little people.

If you are a huge Corporate Exec you are "In like Flint".

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Actually I am a little annoyed to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation (even if it's for just a specific reason). You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

Agreed.

And, what if later it was found that McDonald's was putting an addictive drug into their food which ultimately resulted in people craving it more and eating it more often. What then?

 

[bigrash]

Originally posted by: sixone
It's pathetic that the US Congress even had to address the question.

agreed!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Actually I am a little angry to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation. You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

I hope the bill gets struck down.

Hello, where have you've been?

This is now the land of Corporations, anything and everything for the almighty dollar and the Corporations at the expense of the Country and the little people.

If you are a huge Corporate Exec you are "In like Flint".

"Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demand for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen."

The funny thing is, you're too stupid to realize that it is business that gives you such a high standard of living.

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Actually I am a little annoyed to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation (even if it's for just a specific reason). You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

Agreed.

And, what if later it was found that McDonald's was putting an addictive drug into their food which ultimately resulted in people craving it more and eating it more often. What then?

That would qualify for tainted food which isn't protected under this bill.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: MattCo
Now who are the overweight people going to blame?

they'll find someone.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Actually I am a little annoyed to see a bill like this being considered. Nobody should ever be exempt from litigation (even if it's for just a specific reason). You put a product on the market with the expectation that somebody will try and take advantage of you.

The proper way to fix the issue isn't to ban litigation, but to reform the court system to allow frivilous lawsuits to be thrown out easier and with greater consequences to those that start the bullsh*t case.

Agreed.

And, what if later it was found that McDonald's was putting an addictive drug into their food which ultimately resulted in people craving it more and eating it more often. What then?

That would qualify for tainted food which isn't protected under this bill.

Are you sure? What if McD's included the name of the addictive drug in the ingredients. Would it still be tainted even if consumers knew the product had an addictive drug in it?

Edit: I think you're wrong. I think it's now legal for McD's to have an addictive drug listed in the ingredients, then sell their product, producing a generation of people who are addicted to their food.