Let's sue KFC for making chicken that is fattening

Wagner · #1 06-13-2006, 06:23 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/13/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Good Lord, you would think the USA had bigger issues then to sue a fast food chain for its food not being healthy. Did I miss something, was there a law passed saying I have to eat KFC food? Last I checked it was a choice. If you want to be a huge fat @ss you should have the right to eat fatty chicken every night you like. It's your body.

Here is a quote from the BS lawsuit:

trans fat is almost everywhere on this menu. By frying in such a dangerous oil, KFC is making its unsuspecting consumers' arteries Extra Crispy

Is there a moron running around that thinks KFC is a health food??

Why does our society insist on trying to protect people from themselves, if I want to promote heart disease in my body I should be allowed. I pay for my rediculous health coverage, can't I use it if I wish

Sponsored Links

Lambeau · #2 06-13-2006, 06:32 PM

Good points eh!
By the way Wagner, where do you get the words for these random rap lines? Do you actually listen to that stuff?

Eric5273 · #3 06-13-2006, 06:33 PM

I'd have to read the particulars of the case to see if the case has merrit before I would form an opinion.

You say that "Last I checked it was a choice." Yes, it is a choice, but is it an informed choice? Cigarette smoking was a choice too, and most people were falsely lead to believe that smoking was good for you. Evidence later revealed that the Cigarette manufacturers knew very well that it was not healthy and surpressed that information and continued to advertise that it was very healthy to smoke. Once they did that, they broke the law and are then liable.

Likewise, if it can be proven that KFC knew their food was unhealthy and yet they advertised that it was healthy, then they can be held liable for health problems suffered by those who ate the food.

You can have one of 2 ways....

(1) The government looks after the people and decides what is best by regulating the food industry and banning all foods that are not healthy. This is how many communist countries are.

or....

(2) Have a free market and allow companies to sell what they wish, but then people are entitled to sue companies who sell them products which cause harm.

The companies cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they want to go unregulated, then they must be held responsible when their products cause harm.

blondboinsd · #4 06-13-2006, 06:37 PM

thats so stupid, tell the fat ass to go to the gym

Lambeau · #5 06-13-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd

thats so stupid, tell the fat ass to go to the gym

Yeah really. It's not like eating a particular food is going to put 50 pounds of weight on someones ass overnight. It's going to be a gradual process that at some point becomes a realization that "Hey, my ass is getting fat, maybe I shouldn't be eating at KFC". It's the "eaters" responsibility to see that his ass is gradually getting bigger and some changes need to be made on his part.

Verbalkint · #6 06-13-2006, 06:44 PM

I'd say that's a frivolous lawsuit.

Three years ago, a federal court dismissed a similar class action lawsuit against McDonald's. The plaintiffs in that case alleged, among other things, that McDonald's food made kids fat, and caused health problems.

The judge in that case stated in part that "Nobody is forced to eat at McDonald's … [or to] supersize their meals … [and] as long as a consumer exercises free choice with appropriate knowledge, liability for negligence will not attach to a manufacturer." You think like a judge, WagnerX5.

I hope that this lawsuit against KFC will get tossed, also. Lawsuits such as these should never be filed in the first place, imo.

Lambeau · #7 06-13-2006, 06:53 PM

Frivilous lawsuits = too many attorneys in this country and them trying to justify their means.

xx3 · #8 06-13-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I'd have to read the particulars of the case to see if the case has merrit before I would form an opinion.

You say that "Last I checked it was a choice." Yes, it is a choice, but is it an informed choice? Cigarette smoking was a choice too, and most people were falsely lead to believe that smoking was good for you. Evidence later revealed that the Cigarette manufacturers knew very well that it was not healthy and surpressed that information and continued to advertise that it was very healthy to smoke. Once they did that, they broke the law and are then liable.

Likewise, if it can be proven that KFC knew their food was unhealthy and yet they advertised that it was healthy, then they can be held liable for health problems suffered by those who ate the food.

You can have one of 2 ways....

(1) The government looks after the people and decides what is best by regulating the food industry and banning all foods that are not healthy. This is how many communist countries are.

or....

(2) Have a free market and allow companies to sell what they wish, but then people are entitled to sue companies who sell them products which cause harm.

The companies cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they want to go unregulated, then they must be held responsible when their products cause harm.

There is a difference here. No-one apart from elite scientists and the cigarettes themselves, knew that they were bad.

Today the general public is well educated enough to know the difference between good and bad food. Most americans know that McDonalds and all its clones aren't condusive to a healthy self and a healthy lifestyle.

I say keep companies like this in buissness - it is population control after all...

HamannE53 · #9 06-13-2006, 07:05 PM

What a way to flood our court system with unneccessary cases. i agree with wagner x5, just as free speech, free eating applies as well although...Eric5273 made a good point. no one wants to boycott these companies to get something done, but we want these loser companies that make close to 100% profit on everything they sell to share the wealth/ health. if they have knowledge that each one of their meals they sell contains more than half the caloric intake the body needs per day, then they obviously don't appreciate their customers if they are killing them of heart disease, colon cancer, etc...
(b.t.w. 3500 calories = 1 pound of fat)

Wagner · #10 06-13-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I'd have to read the particulars of the case to see if the case has merrit before I would form an opinion.

You say that "Last I checked it was a choice." Yes, it is a choice, but is it an informed choice? Cigarette smoking was a choice too, and most people were falsely lead to believe that smoking was good for you. Evidence later revealed that the Cigarette manufacturers knew very well that it was not healthy and surpressed that information and continued to advertise that it was very healthy to smoke. Once they did that, they broke the law and are then liable.

Likewise, if it can be proven that KFC knew their food was unhealthy and yet they advertised that it was healthy, then they can be held liable for health problems suffered by those who ate the food.

You can have one of 2 ways....

(1) The government looks after the people and decides what is best by regulating the food industry and banning all foods that are not healthy. This is how many communist countries are.

or....

(2) Have a free market and allow companies to sell what they wish, but then people are entitled to sue companies who sell them products which cause harm.

The companies cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they want to go unregulated, then they must be held responsible when their products cause harm.

I totally disagree. Let the buyer beware doesn't mean let the buyer sue if things don't go there way. Who in the right mind thinks inhaling smoke is good for the lungs? I have no sympathy for smokers who bitch about disease. And the same goes for people that eat fast food and have heart disease. No where on a fast food menu does the word HEALTHY appear, so why would a buyer assume that food covered in grease is in someway good for them. The approaches you suggest are either: people are too dumb to make their own choice without government help - or - people can only choose what the government provides...sorry not that black and white.

Best movie ever: http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_se...oking/trailer/

Sponsored Links