'Cheeseburger Bill' Clears 1st Minn. House Panel

[The Straight Story]

'Cheeseburger Bill' Clears 1st Minn. House Panel

A Minnesota House panel has approved legislation that would block consumers from suing fast-food chains and other food companies for weight problems.

The Civil Law Committee approved the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act on a voice vote. The proposal is also known as the "cheeseburger bill."

The bill would prevent consumers from suing the food industry for weight gain, obesity and health problems caused by long-term consumption of fattening foods and non-alcoholic drinks such as soda.

The sponsor, Republican Rep. Dean Urdahl of Grove City, says the bill would prevent frivolous lawsuits. Urdahl has been pushing the legislation since 2004.


http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1983305.shtml?cat=1

[rfranklin]

1. Why should this industry get special protection?

contributions to politicians from fast food companies perhaps?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Because, ultimately, it's the consumers choice to eat there.

It's no different than smokers getting lung cancers. People know the risks now days and choose to ignore them.
Should I be allowed to sue online porn distributors if I get chaffed skin on my pickle?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I think the focus should be on the product, not the "choice" of the consumer of that product.

There have been controversial studies that show that fast food has addictive qualities due to the taste, mostly due to the fat content.

People prefer to eat fast food for a variety of reasons: the convenience, the price, the predictability of the "quality" of the product. With kids, it's a place to hang out. Parents placate their children with children's meals and a toy. Families can afford to eat out together.

And with the economy the way it is, fast food may be the only "choice" in eating out as opposed to sit-down restaurants.

On a level, eating at a fast food franchise is both voluntary and involuntary. The food provided should be manufactured and prepared so it does not cumulatively provoke and develop coronary artery disease and/or diabetes in its customers.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. There's nothing involuntary about deciding what to put in your body.

Quality food can be had inexpensively if one is willing to learn how to cook.
It's all about convenience (really, it's laziness, but "convenience" sounds more P.C.)

I made home-made thai/asian food for my in-laws last night... after working my normal 10 hours (at a manufacturing facility). Probably spent half of what we would have for that kind of food at a restaraunt.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. I agree with you. I cook and bake partially for my health and partially for economical reasons.

But there are people with little or no choice. They may be lucky enough to have access to only one room, or a bed with no kitchen facilities. Not even a hot plate.

And they have to eat. And they have limited funds. And they may find themselves inevitably at a fast food joint. And they can't have a choice of a healthy menu and the fast food menu.

From a corporation's mission to make the most profit with the least cost, I can understand why "meat" with cheap fillers of questionable origins is served and it will affect blood pressure and blood sugar. But I don't agree with it.

[rfranklin]

8. Ever try to get a healthy meal while on the road?

It's almost impossible.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. Subway can be pretty healthy, as far as fast food is concerned.

And they're pretty connomplace here in Ohio.

:Shrug:

[itsrobert]

11. Try a supermarket

Some are even open 24/7.

[itsrobert]

18. They don't have drive thru windows

That explains a lot. Can't get out of the car and walk into a grocery store.

[lapislzi]

12. Well, aren't you virtuous?

I cook at home as much as I can. But sometimes, after working and commuting for a total of 12 hours, I will reach for what is convenient (oh, sorry: *lazy*). I read labels and try to make the best choices possible. But I'm just a lazy slattern because I open a box of Rice A Roni once in awhile.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. So you would favor the banning of tobbaco products and alcohol?

Not all consumed products are good for us or even neutral. It choice, people need to be responsible for them.

[no_hypocrisy]

19. Hi. No, not ban but allow plaintiffs to litigate for ill effects from the products.

[WinkyDink]

16. You are joking, right? Because your argument is completely ludicrous. Here, have some foie gras.

OOPS! Fast-food places don't SELL foie gras!
So you would propose what, about high-end restaurants?

[Wilms]

5. I thought the headline was a Big Dog reference..

:shrug:

[xchrom]

6. of course they are.

:eyes: anything to benefit a corporation.

[spanone]

10. call it the bullshit bill. protecting a food company from lawsuits???/ bullshit

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Firearms companies have similar protections

to product them from idiots suing for political reaons.

Note that this does not protect the local store if they put mercury in your burger.

[SoCalDem]

15. Don't most people already know that eating crappy food makes you fat?

If it's common knowledge that eating fast food is fattening , it may be okay to prevent frivolous lawsuits claiming it made you fat:shrug:

e coli suits are another thing
scalding hot beverages in flimsy cups are another thing.
slippery floors are another thing

fat..not so much.

You would have to be living in "I-can't-hear-you-land" to NOT know that fast food is bad for you (unless it's truly an occasional treat)

[WinkyDink]

17. If there is product deficiency, mis-labeling, corruption, yes, there needs be legal redress. But

simply for the very nature of the food?

GET SERIOUS.