CA Suit Seeks to Ban OREOS (multiple threads merged)


PDA






MeekandMild
May 12, 2003, 07:45 PM
OK, now they're suing to ban Oreo cookies!

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/05/12/rtr968320.html

If you enjoyed reading about "CA Suit Seeks to Ban OREOS (multiple threads merged)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
May 12, 2003, 07:57 PM
Of course. The black exterior, the white interior, there has to be some sort of subversive racist message in there somewhere...

:banghead:

sm
May 12, 2003, 08:02 PM
"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A lawyer who has spent much of his life enjoying Oreo cookies has sued Kraft Foods Inc. seeking to ban the much-loved cookies in California because they contain trans fat, an ingredient he calls inedible". <snip>

Calling Jim March...Jim...all you have to do to get CCW in Kali is to assert " your Honor I'm suing for CCW in Kali, otherwise due to undo suffering I'll pig out on Oreos to relieve my mental suffering...to save the taxpayers money for a suit...just issue CCW's...

[ sarcasm off]

Attorney's get a lot of bad comments, wonder why.
Then the better attny's don't get recognized...Like March.

Standing Wolf
May 12, 2003, 09:51 PM
So many assault lawyers! So few opportunities to get rich quick!

Don Rac
May 13, 2003, 01:44 AM
I wonder how long it'll take before this gets thrown out for being stupid. If I were the judge or whoever had to read through this crap, I'd be seriously pissed off for the time I lost. It would be worse than watching Battlefield Earth.

Elmer Snerd
May 13, 2003, 02:10 AM
They are only going to ban the "high capacity artery assault" packaging. You'll still be able to buy them in packages of no more than 10.

sanchezero
May 13, 2003, 03:24 AM
Yeah, those lil 4 packs next to the Little Debbies.

Limit 1 pack a month and you must have your cholesterol checked at each purchase.

Just think of the jobs they'll create with this program!

Henry Bowman
May 13, 2003, 10:00 AM
It's only 99.99% of the lawyers who give the rest of us a bad name. :scrutiny:





Send lawyers, guns and money . . .

enichols
May 13, 2003, 10:40 AM
...I saw the imbecile giving his speil about banning Oreos on the news. Scary that there are people like this out there.

Don Gwinn
May 13, 2003, 12:41 PM
I swear to God, if anything happens to the Oreos, there will be bloodshed. There are lines across which I cannot be pushed.:fire:

Skunkabilly
May 13, 2003, 12:53 PM
Isn't there already another alternative brand (Proxies?? Hydroxies?? Something like that?) that doesn't use the evil ingredients?

You know...if I was concerned about my health...I wouldn't be eating Oreos in the first place. Wait, I haven't been able to afford snacks since I went tactical.... :o

Ol' Badger
May 13, 2003, 01:47 PM
You can have my Oreo when you pry it from my cold dead hand!!! :fire:

4v50 Gary
May 13, 2003, 01:56 PM
Bozo should scrape the center stuff out and eat the cookie alone without it. OT & case closed.

DWS1117
May 13, 2003, 02:50 PM
I think this moron more than likely came from the shallow end.



http://www.msnbc.com/news/912868.asp

Justin
May 13, 2003, 02:54 PM
Someone should beat that moron with a clue-by-four.

Unfortunately, this is off topic.

2dogs
May 14, 2003, 07:02 AM
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/sees051403.shtml

THROW DOWN YOUR OREOS,
GUNS, SMOKES
OUR FREEDOM IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF COURTS AND MAYORS

By: Dorothy Anne Seese

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws!" --Tacitus (A.D. 55-130)

Yes, like any other kid, I ate Oreos and now an attorney in California (aka **********) wants to ban Oreos. No, don't laugh, this is a real live prospective lawsuit! Oreos, so the attorney alleges, contain trans-fatty acids or "trans fats" as they are now known. Well, so does Crisco or other vegetable shortening, margarine and hundreds of other products we eat daily. We usually see them on labels as "partially hydrogenated" soybean oil or other vegetable oil product.




It was bad enough when the World Health Organization, the UN's "fat police," was weighing in on what our body mass should be, and they've only taken shelter for a little bit until they can make a home run in some liberal court. Meantime, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, an ex-smoker himself who is now out to reform (and financially ruin) the city over which he presides has cost restaurant and bar owners as much as 40%-50% of their business, according to a report in the New York Post.

However, it is now being proposed that Californians should throw down their Oreos and the product should be banned from the state. They've only been around since 1912, but suddenly they have become a threat to the public health, especially that of children. (Always watch out when someone says it's "for the children" because there's an agenda in the Control Closet somewhere.) If you cannot eat Oreos, then what will you eat? Almost all cookies are made with a lot of shortening. If you don't use butter (full of cholesterol) then you use partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (like Crisco or margarine).

In my pantry are some cookies purchased from my local Trader Joe's, the California-based home of all things organic and as many kinds of rice as people in the USA never knew about. I checked the label and <gasp> Trader Joe's has sold me some of their own brand of oatmeal raisin cookies and they contain partially hydrogenated shortening! Ban those suckers. I purchased them from the most wildly liberal, seaweed-promoting, fish-dispensing, organic salad purveyor in the whole flippin USA. And yet they contain the same ingredient as Oreos. Sue the blighters. Sue them, I say.

In case anyone doesn't recall the year 1983 or the circumstances, the Ninth Circuit (aka Ninth Circus) Court of Appeals in California (where else?) ruled that a woman's health had been damaged by being subjected to smokers working around her. I was working in the legal field when I heard that report via news radio, and I knew what was coming. There is no delight in saying "I told you so" when Americans lose their freedoms. All these old pharts who lived through the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, residing in retirement communities like Sun City have now decided that in order for them to live even longer and pay even higher medical costs for their arthritis and hip replacements, everyone else should stop smoking. If all the smoke they lived through was so deadly, how did this bunch of goofballs who cannot tell red from green stoplights live into their late 70's and 80's?

Meanwhile, not all is calm in the state of New Jersey, either, where it has been proposed that anything that distracts a driver should be illegal and punishable by fines and/or jail time, and that ranges from tuning the radio to having a cup of coffee in the coffee holder and drinking it while driving (or maybe just sitting at a stop light waiting for green). The police power granted in this proposed law, which the people of New Jersey may or may not defeat, is frightening. Even a woman looking in the rear view mirror and touching her hair could be accused of driving while distracted, whether she was fixing her hair or not. Maybe she just has a scalp itch ... no scratching while driving!

Now mind you, while each of these is a separate and discrete state issue, collectively they are forming the basis for controls such as the United States has never known.

Don't think for a minute that these issues aren't known to our present administration. If ever President Bush or Attorney General John Ashcroft wanted to assure Americans of their liberty, it would be now ... with subtle phone calls to the people who are promoting these assaults against our liberties. Don't think it isn't any of their business, it is. Whatever they decide is their business becomes their business. Don't think for a minute that President Bush isn't acquainted with billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York.

What is this reference to the present administration about? It's about using heavy-handed billionaire mayors and little known lawyers from California and New Jersey to instigate rules, regulations and police powers that will effect controls to further stifle the freedoms of Americans until there is no question that they will have to throw down their guns or die, be jailed, or carted off to some unknown destination as enemies of the state.

Most people will see little connection between a few outlandish controls in California, New Jersey, New York and other whack states (including my home, Arizona) and the overall progress of a controlled America. Be assured, there is one. A big network of little controls that condition us, one by one, to accept the fact that one morning, we will have utterly NO freedoms left. At that point ... the gun owners who are fighting so hard to keep their weapons (and sometimes their Oreos and cigarettes) will be enemies of the state. It's on its way.

True Republicans would fight this sort of control. Neocons will not and liberal Democrats will not. The struggle is not for American freedom but for American control. After all, as long as Americans own guns and can assert constitutional rights, there's going to be a fight. Now ... if a gun owner eats an Oreo cookie ....hmmm. Think about it. Every freedom one American takes from another American will find its way back home until the state has all the power and the people have none.

My suggestion is for the still-free Americans to apprise themselves of this chicanery and put a stop to it. Now. Tomorrow is too late. We're not losing our Constitution and Bill of Rights by the year, or month, we're losing it by the hour, one lawsuit at a time. What an elected administration will not do, and an elected Congress dare not do, is shifted to the courts to do. And it all adds up to police power. If eating a cookie is illegal ... then they can confiscate your guns! Be sure that anyone convicted of eating illegal cookies or illegal driving will be forbidden to own firearms.

That's my take on it. Now you, free Americans, who are getting less free every day, better get busy and find out what's going on in your state to take away another one of your freedoms. The end object isn't your cigarettes or your Oreos, it's your firearms and anything they can convict you of that has a firearms confiscation or ownership prohibition attached to it. And soon, every offense will have that penalty.

You betcha!

WyldOne
May 14, 2003, 12:24 PM
Suddenly Boston doesn't feel too bad. :(

Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-12-oreo-suit_x.htm)

California suit seeks ban on Oreos

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — 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 May 1 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 filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, after reading articles about the health threat posed by the artificial fat that is contained in most packaged foods but isn't listed with other nutritional information.

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 contained hidden dangers being marketed to children.

Joseph said he targeted Nabisco because as other major snack food sellers reduced the amount of trans fats in their products, Nabisco had not.

Nabisco has been exploring ways to reduce trans fats in Oreos, said company spokesman Michael Mudd. He also pointed out that reduced fat Oreos have half the trans fats as the regular kind.

"Nutrition policy is best left to health professionals and regulatory agencies," said Mudd. "They have the expertise to address nutritional issues in the full context of people's overall eating and activity background."

The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, 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 said partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which contain trans fats, are present in about 40% 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 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.

The case is Bantransfat.com, Inc. vs. Kraft Foods North America, No. CV 032-041.


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.

CZ-75
May 14, 2003, 12:33 PM
You're behind the curve, though. This is the 3rd or 4th thread on this nutiness.

WyldOne
May 14, 2003, 01:23 PM
LOL sorry. :o I looked real quick, and I wanted to post it before I went to lunch (to eat my celebratory Oreos).

Feel free to close this, which you probably will anyway, dear moderators. :)

cordex
May 14, 2003, 01:56 PM
I wanted to post it before I went to lunch (to eat my celebratory Oreos).
Chowin' on some "Double Stuft" Oreos right now, in fact. The descriptions on the radio of the evil ingredients made me so hungry for some I went out and bought a package with extra evil kill-cream.

yummy.

Haven't seen you around much, Wyld. Too busy shopping around for a gun, right?

Greg L
May 14, 2003, 02:17 PM
A little bird told me that she's been out shooting one of those eeeevil assault killing machines recently (trying to keep things from getting shut down too quickly :D )

Greg

CZ-75
May 14, 2003, 02:28 PM
I'm bettin' Oreo sales go up b/c of this. I'm going to go buy some just to PO some doofus in Kali. :D

bountyhunter
May 14, 2003, 02:28 PM
When eating Oreos is a crime, only criminals will have Oreos.

Frohickey
May 14, 2003, 02:29 PM
http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/reuters_ids/20030513/i/432244977.jpg British-born attorney Stephen Joseph holds an Oreo cookie in San Francisco May 12, 2003. Joseph, who has spent much of his life enjoying Oreo biscuits has sued Kraft Foods. and is seeking to ban the much-loved cookies in California because they contain trans fat, an ingredient he calls inedible. REUTERS/Tim Wimborne



:scrutiny:
I think this guy's brain is of the same consistency as the sweet creamy filling.

CZ-75
May 14, 2003, 02:35 PM
British-born attorney Stephen Joseph holds an Oreo cookie in San Francisco May 12, 2003.

There you go. ;)

Skunkabilly
May 14, 2003, 03:17 PM
Don't eat them, moron!

foghornl
May 14, 2003, 03:28 PM
British-born attorney
Explains more than I ever wanted to know about this nut-job and his wacko lawsuits. Two strikes against him just for starters.

Can we one-way express him back to [formerly] Great Britain ? ? ?

Marko Kloos
May 14, 2003, 04:07 PM
Some people just have nothing better to do than stick their noses into other people's lives.

I wonder whether an Oreo ban would result in the inevitable black market that always follows a prohibition? Will we have Oreo speakeasies, where customers sit hunched over a plate of cookies and a glass of milk? Will people smuggle Oreos by the trunkload past Cali's DOA border posts, only to sell them on the streets of LA and SF for $20 a pack?

CZ-75
May 14, 2003, 04:25 PM
I wonder whether an Oreo ban would result in the inevitable black market that always follows a prohibition? Will we have Oreo speakeasies, where customers sit hunched over a plate of cookies and a glass of milk? Will people smuggle Oreos by the trunkload past Cali's DOA border posts, only to sell them on the streets of LA and SF for $20 a pack?


I wonder what sort of sentences they'll be handing out for illegal Oreo users and smugglers?

TallPine
May 14, 2003, 04:47 PM
Better buy your "pre-ban" cookies now while you still can.

Skunkabilly
May 14, 2003, 04:52 PM
Maybe they should recolor the black cookie to a less threatening brown wood veneer to keep them legal.

It works with rifles.

Elmer Snerd
May 14, 2003, 05:04 PM
Maybe they should recolor the black cookie to a less threatening brown wood veneer to keep them legal.

Then the antis will just whine that "they are making cosmetic changes to get around the law". "Assault cookies" have no legitimate dining purpose, you know that.

cordex
May 14, 2003, 05:06 PM
Transfattylicious!

Skunkabilly
May 14, 2003, 06:40 PM
Can we buy the cookie part and creme stuff as parts and assemble them as long as at least one component is pre-ban?

Preacherman
May 14, 2003, 11:41 PM
From SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/14/state1814EDT0162.DTL):

SF lawyer says he's dropping suit against Oreo cookies

RON HARRIS, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, May 14, 2003
(05-14) 15:52 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

The move to outlaw Oreo cookies in California crumbled Wednesday when the lawyer who tried to ban the tasty snack foods said he had decided to drop his suit.

San Francisco attorney Stephen Joseph told The Associated Press he would not pursue the action any further, and only wanted to get the word out about the dangers of unlabeled fats contained in the popular black and white cookies.

"We have received thousands of e-mails expressing support for what we have done in advising the public of this problem," Joseph said. "But it's no longer necessary to continue the lawsuit because at the time the lawsuit was filed nobody knew about trans fat. Now everybody knows about trans fat."

He expressed no remorse for using California courts as a publicity tool. Kraft spokesman Michael Mudd, however, saw things differently.

"We really don't believe that the courts are the place to make nutrition policy," Mudd said. "That's best handled by nutrition professionals and regulatory agencies."

Mudd said though the suit was filed May 1 and amended four days later, the company was never served with a copy.

Joseph made national headlines earlier this week after word surfaced he had filed suit in a Marin County Superior Court seeking a ban on Oreo sales in the state.

Joseph argued in his suit that the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat. Trans fat is the artificial substance contained in many packaged foods but not listed with other nutritional information.

Mudd said Northfield, Ill.-based Kraft Foods North America Inc., the parent company of Oreo-maker Nabisco, continues to research ways to get trans fat out of Oreos while preserving the flavor.

Kraft received more than 250 e-mails concerning trans fat in the days following news of the suit. Most of those e-mails were in support of the company, Mudd said.

Tamara
May 14, 2003, 11:47 PM
San Francisco attorney Stephen Joseph told The Associated Press...

A British-born lawyer living in San Francisco. Boy, does this guy feed the stereotypes or what? :scrutiny:

mons meg
May 14, 2003, 11:56 PM
It's not like it could have gone anywhere...I mean one Atkins diet person on the jury would realize it's the sugar that will do you in... ;)

sm
May 15, 2003, 12:28 AM
He dropped the suit???
And here I was thinking about "Oreo-running". You know to show my dissent and to provide Oreos...oh well...

4v50 Gary
May 15, 2003, 01:01 PM
He dropped the case.

WyldOne
May 15, 2003, 03:34 PM
"But it's no longer necessary to continue the lawsuit because at the time the lawsuit was filed nobody knew about trans fat. Now everybody knows about trans fat."

Um, am I the only one who stumbled over this part?

Lawsuit as attention-getter device. Well, clearly it works, but it's still disgusting. IF someone did something wrong, then wouldn't that person STILL be wrong even after people knew about it? :confused:

50 Freak
May 15, 2003, 04:51 PM
You know, the reason for most of these law suits is desperate attorneys looking for deep pockets to sue. They really don't want to go against the company, its more of blackmail. These lowlife attorneys are hoping the deep pockets will settle out of court rather than waste a ton of money fighting the suit.

"Some people should be shot":fire:

general
May 17, 2003, 08:40 AM
I switched to the "Low Fat" Oreos when my doc put me on 80mgs of Zocor. Cholseterol was about 280. Just had mine checked again and it's 182 - w/ triglicerides 245. Now I'm drinking too much Coke and getting too much sugars and starches.
I'm not sure if I can go on - or even if it's worth it to "live" anymore without my goodies.
It's just like the gun thing - take away one thing then work on another.... bit by bit you'll have nothing left.
Ack. Oreo crumbs. on the keyboard.
I'm dyin'....
second......
hand.........
oreo..........
crumbs......
:neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "CA Suit Seeks to Ban OREOS (multiple threads merged)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!