Stop Killer Cookies Now!
 

SF attorney sues to end sale of Oreo cookies to state's kids

The Associated Press

-- A San Francisco attorney wants to outlaw the sale of Oreo cookies to children -- because they contain something called trans fat.

It's the trans fat that makes the cookie crisp and the cream filling creamy.

And that's just the problem, according to lawyer Stephen Joseph. He sued last week in Marin County Superior Court after reading about the dangers of trans fat in newspaper stories.

The suit asks the court to order Kraft Foods, the parent of cookie maker Nabisco, to stop selling Oreos to California's children because they are made with the fat.

The fat is in about 40 percent of the food on grocery shelves. A branch of the National Academy of Sciences said last summer that trans fat is directly tied to heart disease and artery-clogging cholesterol.

Nabisco officials have 30 days from the May 5th filing date to respond.

Why don't we make everything bad for us illegal. Then, no one will have to take any responsibility for their own actions of eating/drinking something bad.

this is further proof you can sue for any reason in the U.S. now
noone made the kids eat the cookies
why don't we sue the stores and the schools for stocking the cookies too?!

Hey, I'm eating an Oreo right now. So sue me.
No, really, I'm eating one right now. quite tasty

Jeez... what transfatty acids have been around for decades... they've been included in most processed foods.

well... I guess he finally found the light...

all i gotta say about that is "STUPID"
people are soooo lame

I guess I may be the only one here who thinks this would be great. I know it's idealistic but I do think it would be a better world without garbage food.

I don't eat a speck of it myself.

I guess instead of outlawing it, you'd suggest I just try to convince other people not to eat the junk, organize consumer movements and boycotts to educate the public about how this crap kills, etc.

Right?

Or do you think it's just fine if 40% and more of the food that's shoved at us is no damn good for us? ...and let the buyer beware? ...and leave it up to "personal choice"?

I do think that junkfood has no place in the schools, and I would support this legislation if it banned oreos (and other junk food) in schools.

I see it is a San Francisco lawyer.

Art,

I assume when you say 'great' you mean it would be good if people ate wholesome foods and not 'great', lawsuits should be brought against companies simply because the do something we do not personally like (but is still legal).

yes, Lebell.

Also, remember, I consider that we live in a near total mind-control society where the overwhelming majority of citizens are too weak to resist the sophisticated manipulative techniques of multi-billion-dollar organizations whose sole goal is to subvert better judgement in the interest of pushing their particular poision.

I also consider that most people who say they are above this hypnotic mass-media induced trance are in severe denial.

I agree with this part. :)
Self control. You either have it or you don't, and I don't feel sorry for the ones who don't have any control over what they put in their mouths. Nobody forces any of us to eat a thing. If a comercial makes someone buy something that isn't good for them then I think you're a dumbass and deserve to have a heart attack.

I am all for it - Hell! It's California!

I believe that the sale of Oreo Cookies in California should be outlawed. Not only are they an inherent danger to the people of California look at the damage they cause to a glass of milk! A cold, clean, unadulterated glass of milk - compleetely befouled with those little chocolate crumbs! Yuck!!! There is nothing inherently more dangerous than milk that has been infused with the debris from an Oreo cookie being dunked into it! Outlaw milk! Let's not go off half-cocked on this issue - Proposiition 4356.7A - If the cookie has inherent harm then the milk should be outlawed also. After all - the two have been known to be together previously. Ya' gotta' love California - the land of Mueslix - full of fruits and nuts. What I think would be a good move for an astute businessman such as myself - I am going to acquire a large fleet of trucks so I can smuggle milk and cookies into California - I'll make a fortune - I'll be rich!!!

Scene: Liquor Dealer in a van, near an elementary school yard. A child approaches...

Liquor Dealer: Here kid, try one of these. It's called an "Oreo". It won't hurt you, I promise. But you'll LOVE it!

Kid takes and eats cookie.

Liquor Dealer: You want another? Well, it'll cost ya. But if you're not sure, have a drink of this, it's called milk...

Yep, like sixate said, buyer beware, to limit everyones diet to make all food completely health is idealistic, besides if this happened what's next? limits on what we can drink?(not including minors and beer, wine, etc.)

To do other wise is too coddling.

Well, whats next? We would definately have to outlaw most fast food joints, and restaurants in general if we are going to legislate our way to better health.

I don't touch anything with trans-fats in it. Its some deadly crap. But I believe I should be allowed to if I like.

I notice it states outlawing the sale to children, but It should be the kids parents responsibility to watch what the kids are eating.
I don't know many kids who do the grocery shopping. If they are eating junk, most likely their parents are buying it. So it wouldn't help anyway to prevent the sale to kids.

Sounds like another frivolous lawsuit to me, but who would have thought someone who spilled hot coffee would win in court, but it happened. So I guess you never know, especially in Calif.

Down with the imperialist cookie monopolies and their Double Stuff conspiracies! It is inevitable that the glucose intolerant will rise up against their oppressors and live in a fat free paradise.

sounds like...hmm totalitarian govt maybe?

I'm against the government making things that are "bad" illegal instead of giving us a choice. Be they cigarettes, pot, acid, or....Oreos.

They can take our lives, but they can never take my Oreos. If I want to eat something that may endanger my health, it's my problem and no-one elses.

That said however, people have to consider the consequences of their actions. I know eating unhealthy food isn't good for me, if I have a heart attack there's no-one to blame but me. Not that I could sue them even if I wanted to... unless I moved to America.

not really.
all the knee-jerk reactions above that have to do with personal choice, individual responsibility, too much government, frivolous lawsuits sound good - until you think about them for more than 10 seconds.

indiscriminate sales and deceptive promotion of poisonous products is not a right.
giving kids a one-two punch in the mind with ads aimed directly at them in order to poison them isn't a right either.

protecting citizens from poison is a legitimate function of government.

all your protestations to the contrary sound like "I want my Oreos."

I eat a lot of junk food, but not much of it is stuff that has advertising... it mainly has a brand name like Budget or No Frills. It's cheaper and tastier... probably more unhealthy too but I'll worry about that when I'm older.

It's only poison when people go overboard... Most things are good in moderation.

MrFlux, you're personal food preferences are not at issue.

Billions of advertising dollars are targeted at people who have increasingly diminished ability to discriminate - not because they are somehow deficient but because they live in our society and have been rendered parially or totally mindless. No one seems to want to discuss this, except to toss it off as a ridiculous notion of mine. I have responded they are in denial. I'm waiting for a response.

I'll take a swing, but first...
 

Are you relating Nabisco to the tobacco companies? Wouldn't all things be considered poisonous in this sight, even things taken in moderation?

Sounds like you want to overhaul the US government and advertising systems there...


Agreed, protecting citizens from poison is a legitimate function of government and yes i do want my Oreos!!:p

Art,
Wouldn't makeing the sale of Oreo's, and other junk food illeagal
just make people MORE mindless?
Further diminishing their ability to discriminate?

I don't see this as pratical.(legislateing morality/health)
The commercials are a far bigger problem than the unhealthy product.

Thanks for the responses.

To me, it would be preferable to NOT use additional governmental tools. I believe these companies could all be prosecuted under currently existing laws aganst false and deceptive advertising.

There's no sane reason why children should be victimized - targeted the way they are by billion-dollar mind-manipulation programs that are created using top-secret corporate psychological research and employing deceptive methodologies.

Children grow up to be adults - the damage has already been done to too many citizens.

I believe there are some ways to deal with this increasingly dangerous problem of false and deceptive advertising that do not involve anything more than enforcing the laws we already have on the books.

But for that to work wouldn't Nabisco have to be say that Oreo cookies are healthy for you? Also wouldn't all things be considered poisonous if taken to the extreme? Take those diet pills for example, they can be very harmful to someone if taken to often same for diet pills. However, they aren't aimed at kids so are they okay?

Parents have always said to much of anything is bad for you. So even if they products weren't aimed at children would you still be opposed to having them on the market?

When certain ingredients are present in food, I'd require statements that warnings be in bigger and bolder type than the brand names.

I'd like to go after the companies that sell garbage to human beings in the most effective and enlightened way possible. I'd like to go after the ones who target children by forcing them to reveal their secret psychological research immediately.

I'd make a huge issue of mass-media mind control. It's in our interest to initiate full-bored investigations into what goes on behind the scenes in corporate marketing as it relates to taking peoples' freedom of thought away from them without their knowledge or consent.

But the simple fact is, if we prosecuted corporations for the false and deceptive claims they make - these problems, in large part, would be on their way to being solved.

I have enough faith in people to think that once the facts are known about mass media, they would begin to reject it. We haven't even begun to put the kind of money behind an expose that is being put into secret corporate research on how to manipulate our minds.

So your not after these companies to stop making there products but merely tell everyone in bold plain sight that there product contains ingredients that are harmful? Well, harmful in what size amounts? How much of a certain ingredient does a product have to have before its required to have this tag? If its any portion at all of these so called garbage ingredients then, maybe its just me but i'd hate to walk into a grocery store and see how everything on the shelves could kill me...

Goverment isn't going to expose these mass marketing practices, because goverment deploys the same stratiges in everything from political campians to millitary service.
Sheep are far easier to lead, than well informed voters.

I would like to see warnings on products, such as:
MSG
Nutra-sweet
Olestra
And many other known toxic substances

Dark_Prophecy,
I'm after the most realistic and effective ways to improve the life of citizens by disincentivizing those who prey on us.

I believe the above tactics would be enough to drive most of these companies either out of business or into better business.

If these tactics prove too weak to be effective, I don't have a problem with resorting to using governmental tools to protect citizens from bodily and psychological harm.

As you said:
"...protecting citizens from poison is a legitimate function of government..."

But what do you think the most realistic and effective way is to stop those who prey on us other than warnings being bigger and bolder type than the brand names. Without a massive retooling of most american thinking, i'd think bigger and bolder print would just be looked over to find the brand name. Bigger labels just seems to be a band-aid on an elephant gun wound.

I guess i'm asking when you say you'll use governmental tools, how far are you really willing to go? Maybe you did answer my questions and i'm just missing something in my reading...

Ban Trans Fats web site
 

Here's some of the things that can be done...
........................................................................

BanTransFats.com, Inc. is a newly established non-profit corporation based in California. Our goal is the reduction and elimination of trans fats from all food products.


We have sued Kraft/Nabisco, because it is targeting its marketing of Oreo Cookies to young children. Oreo Cookies contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil, a trans fat. This is the first anti-trans fat lawsuit ever filed by anyone. PLEASE DON'T BUY KRAFT/NABISCO OREO COOKIES.


We have launched the DON'T PARTIALLY HYDROGENATE ME™ T-shirt and bumper sticker campaign. (Be sure to get yours.) We will also take legal action against food manufacturers and organize selective boycotts.


We are proud to announce that Dr. Mary Enig, who is widely regarded as the world's leading expert on the danger of trans fats, is our principal consultant.


Trans fats cause significant and serious lowering of HDL (good) cholesterol and a significant and serious increase in LDL (bad) cholesterol; major clogging of arteries; type 2 diabetes; and other serious health problems. Trans fats are placed into food to increase shelf life, but they decrease human life.


If the hydrogenation process were discovered today, it could not be adopted by the oil food industry.


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently taken the position that “intake of trans fats should be as low as possible.” This is the only legal food ingredient that merits such strong concern by the FDA.


There are recommended maximum daily allowances for total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium on the FDA approved “Nutrition Facts” labels on food packages. For example, the labels state that 25 grams of saturated fat can be consumed daily as part of a 2,500 calorie diet. However, the FDA has refused to set a maximum recommended daily allowance for trans fats, because the only safe level is zero.


Kraft has objected to the FDA's proposal to include trans fats in the "Nutrition Facts" labels on food products on the ground that it will “mislead consumers and may result in food choices inconsistent with public health goals.'' Kraft's objection is an insult to everyone's intelligence.


In fact, the FDA's proposed labeling will be completely useless for children. There is no way that a child will be warned by the technical "Nutrition Facts" label, especially a child who is so young that he or she cannot read. Kids need prominent bright obvious graphic labeling, so that they know to steer away from those products. A parent can say: "If you see that label on something, don't eat it."


Frito-Lay is completely eliminating trans fats from Doritos, Tostitos and Cheetos and is converting to corn oil, a trans fat-free oil. And even McDonald’s is reducing by 47 percent the level of trans fat used in its French fries. But Kraft has made no announcement that it will eliminate trans fat from Oreo Cookies.


In March 2003, Denmark issued new regulations limiting the amount of trans fat in processed foods. Denmark's food minister said: "We put the public health above the industry's interests." Why can't the United States do the same?


We are very concerned that the Federal Government announced on May 8, 2003 that it will not force companies to produce healthier food. The Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson, said that he hopes that the food companies will do so voluntarily. We do not agree at all. We need to put pressure on the food companies, and pass appropriate legislation and regulations.


The best way to get the food industry to remove the trans fats from its products is to avoid buying products containing trans fats. If you see the words "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated" or "fractionated" in the ingredients, choose a different product. If enough of us avoid products with trans fats, the food industry will get the message.


Incidentally, there are several "Oreo" alternatives that have no trans fat. Newman's "O" cookies contain no trans fat and taste just as good as Kraft/Nabisco Oreo Cookies. An Oreo doesn't need trans fat to taste great. (We have no relationship with the Newman company or any other commercial interest.)


We are looking for corporate sponsors. We have a huge battle ahead of us and we need all the financial backing that we can get. We will accept financial support from any company that agrees with our goal of reducing and eliminating trans fats and does not attempt to influence us to deviate from that goal in any way. We will list all sponsors on this website.
.........................................................................

More info is available on their site bantransfats.com

I think this is interesting in that it does demonstrate various approaches available to address such issues. We touched on some of them in the current discussion.

okay, thanks that makes more since. if getting rid of trans fats let me live longer and the product tastes the same i'm all for it. but outlawing the food and not the transfats is the wrong way to go...
thanks for the extra info...

this has got to be the most moronic thing i've heard

Gluttonous slobs who blame their problems on other people, got to love them, eh? I obviously don't like these people, but I also don't really care for the fast food industry either. If the fatties succeed in doing what they don't intend to, or want, which is defeating/crippling/hurting the fastfood industry like those toads fighting tobacco did (just so happens they're greedy too, imagine that) then the only result I can imagine that would impact me is a healthier America, maybe the unions and teamsters won't be so lazy with improved diets and proper blood sugar?

I like these subjects I can sit on my ass being indifferent about.

i agree

*eat me.......i'm an oreo cookie*:D

U P D A T E !!!
 

Lawsuit dropped as Oreo looks to drop the fat
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
from CNN


11 billion Oreo cookies are eaten each year, according to the company's Web site.
Having one? Have a half-trillion!
Since they started making these deceptively delicious poison delivery systems, we've consumed neary a half-terabyte of undigestible trans fat Oreos. Read below to see how the company that shoves them down our throats tries to put a good PR-spin on their current public comeuppance...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer has sued Kraft Foods Inc. seeking to ban Oreo cookies in California because they contain trans fat, an ingredient he calls inedible.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A lawsuit seeking to ban Kraft Foods from selling Oreos to children because the chocolate-cream cookies are allegedly unhealthy will be dropped, the San Francisco lawyer who filed the suit said Wednesday.

Stephen Joseph's suit alleged that Oreos are unhealthy because they contain trans fat, which the National Academy of Sciences has linked to heart disease.

Joseph said he will drop his lawsuit because he has learned that Kraft is working on ways to reduce trans fat in Oreos.

Kraft spokesman Michael Mudd confirmed the company has been working on ways to reduce trans fat in the cookie, including introducing a reduced fat version now on the market.

"This is not something that we've just started" in response to Joseph's lawsuit, he said.

"We're very pleased with Mr. Joseph's decision. We share his concern for public health, and we're doing our part," Mudd said.

Kraft boasts that people have eaten 450 billion Oreo cookies since they introduced the chocolate wafer sandwich cookies with a creamy filling in 1912.

Joseph aimed to force Kraft to stop using hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils to make the cookies.

He called Kraft's move to reduce trans fat in Oreos "a home run" in efforts to make the public more aware of the problem of trans fats in food products, as well as what he termed their "extremely negative effects" on human health.

Joseph said very few parents are aware that the partially hydrogenated soybean oil used as an ingredient in Oreos is a trans fat.

The ingredient is used in thousands and thousands of products. In an interview with CNN Monday, Joseph said, "I am probably full of hydrogenated fat because until two years ago I didn't know about it. I resent the fact that I have been eating that stuff all my life."

Hydrogenation adds hydrogen gas to vegetable oil, helping to solidify it into products such as margarine. Health experts say the process makes them as unhealthy as real butter, if not more so, as the hydrogenated fats act like cholesterol in the body. Trans fats are common in cookies and crackers and part of both the cookie and filling in Oreos.

Frito-Lay, part of PepsiCo Inc., announced last year it would eliminate trans fats from snacks such as Doritos. McDonald's Corp. also said it would make french fries with less trans fat.

In February, a federal court threw out a lawsuit against McDonald's that claimed its burgers and fries cause obesity.

The commissioner for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said the agency will soon require labeling information about trans fats in foods.
.....................

Thank thisuy and his NOT frivolous lawsuit for bringing this slow-murder to the world's attention. Maybe you can wait until Krafty NON-Foods makes these disks of death edible.

Anyone willing to swallow their pride and admit this wasn't as silly as you tried to make it out to be?

It's healthier to swallow your pride than it is to swallow an OREO.

If the taste stays the same I all for it. And getting rid of transfats my not be a bad idea, its just the way these people are going about it that nags me. I just get the impression the lawyer was doing this not because he cares about anyones health, but b/c he wanted his 15 mins of fame...

geeeeeeeeeeesh. hmm. hell, you know my stance on obesity.... and even i say this is a bit much.... though, I definatly see Art's point.

hmmmm blame the parents. that normally works ;)

everything will be illegal, so.

buy

10 boxes of Oereos (i'm no fan of em)
2,938,328 bottles of tobsaco sauce
20 gallons of Absolut or Grey Goose Vdoka
1,000 Playboys, 100 Penthouse, 15 Hustlers
2 of all of the following: Playstation 2, Xbox, Gamecube, Sega Saturn, Sega Dreamcast and N64. ten or twenty jacks
don't forget your kids!
20 or 30 120gig harddrives full of mp3s, games, porn, ect, ect



hmm.....

what else do we need?