We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Stop me from eating! The American food giant, Kraft, is taking a number of steps to ward off the threat it may be sued by obese folk claiming its foodstuffs made them so big. This comes in the wake of threats by an American man to sue various fast-food chains for making him so big.
Kraft, of course, is fully entitled as a private company to adjust its products as it wishes. It is probably a wise move. In the U.S., and sadly, increasingly also here in the UK, the idea that the consumer should adopt the posture of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is on the decline. We are increasingly told that we are all victims, passive suffers of the blandishments of big, evil, and mostly multinational corporations.
The idea of taking responsibility for your actions is dying out. We are on the way to all being treated like naughty little moppets in a creche.
And of course if we do still sneak into a fast-food joint for a big burger, there’s a chance our state nannies will want the evidence recorded on CCTV.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I think Jonathan’s crocodile tears are premature. It’s true that, in the US over the past several years, there have been some high visibility law suits of the type suggested here. But, so far, they fall in the category of media “human interest” rather than legal trends. I believe these legal actions have been (again, so far) almost universally unsuccessful.
George, I suppose your comment should make me happy. I hope you are right.
But the example of what happened to Big Tobacco should be a warning.
I dunno, George. I’m worried this one might have legs at last. I’ve heard more and more news items on obesity lawsuits, and the trial lawyers just had that conference in – Boston, was it? – to discuss this very issue. I’m worried about actions like this one, where a company like Kraft is so spooked by the example of the tobacco lawsuits that it caves before anyone lays a finger on it. (I wonder how long before we hear the expression “big food”).
OK, perhaps I’m a blazing optimist, but my perception (in the US) is that the trial lawyers’ glory days are about over. Most Americans have been annoyed by the trial lawyers for some time. And now, lots of people have been positively spooked by the colateral damage of soaring medical malpractice insurance rates.
Don’t get me wrong. The trial lawyers will still be around, stirring up their own sort of mischief. But I can’t see Big Obesity becoming the next Big Tobacco. In the minds of Americans, the tobacco industry is perceived very differently than is the food industry.
George,
All I can say is, your mouth to God’s ears.
I keep waiting for the lawsuit so absurd that it wins us real tort reform, but we seem to have an infinite patience for this stuff. Sometimes I can’t believe the US economy has survived our lawyerly classes so long.
Early in his campaign, George Bush was pushing tort reform as part of his platform, but it fell off the agenda long before 9/11. Pity. Still, he isn’t a fraction as sympathetic to these giant suits as the Clinton Whitehouse was, and that should make a difference.
If only companies like Kraft don’t roll over at the first rumor of trouble. (Though the thought crossed my mind that Kraft might be pulling a New Coke here – using this lawsuit as a mask to…switch to a cheaper production method, or reduce portions without reducing prices or…something).
I read somewhere that the lawyer in the hamburger case styled himself a “legal terrorist”. yep, that’s right. Maybe, just maybe folk will wake up to the damage done and the costs caused by the mania for litigation. And maybe reformers in Congress and Parliament will realise that the only real beneficiaries of all this stuff are lawyers, and not Joe Public.
Sadly, lawyers tend to give oodles of campaign contributions to parties which favour regulations and the like. Look at all the lawyers who are friendly to New Labour. Look at how many of them back the Democrats. Makes you wonder.
Fingers crossed that sanity breaks out.
While every rational person hates such malevolent lawsuits, what really burns my bacon is that these people apparently think that they *are* the victims of some evil corporation, and will go to court to get something for nothing…. meanwhile, our corporate accounting standards here in the US have gone to pot. Greedy corporate bastards are getting away with crimes which are actually *illegal*, while greedy lawyers and consumers are suing over the fact that macaroni and cheese has calories.
And, well, that’s just wrong.
The really sad thing is that Kraft apparently believes that they can protect themselves from these lawsuits. No freaking way. The only thing the trial lawyers care about is deep pockets, and Kraft has those. Like Smith & Wesson’s attempt to buy immunity from gun lawsuits, Kraft may well be on the road to sacrificing market share for nothing, because I guarantee you that when the Big Food lawsuits are filed, Kraft will be named no matter what they do now.
The difference between “big food” and “big tobacco” is that by law, you have a right to know the fat content, calories and nutritional value of a food. You can even go to McDonald’s website to get the nutritional value (or lack of it) of items that they sell.
Big tobacco did NOT disclose the dangers and millions of people (like my parents who picked up the habit in the 1940’s in their early teens when you could by a “loosie” at the corner store) picked up the habit. In the 1950’s and 1960’s it was advertised as a way to “relax” and practically promoted as healthy. IMHO, anyone of age before the surgeon general’s warning. Anyone who picked up the habit after that was warned that it is poison. It’s on every packet and behind most (depending on the State) registers.
My sisters have always been aware of the dangers, and their logic when I beg them to quit is “you can get cancer a lot of ways.” One after breast cancer still smokes, and I would have little sympathy if she gets cancer again. She went through treatment and surgery. She’s not naive. I’m sorry if that sounds mean, but what does it take for some people to be responsible for themselves.
I think the people trying to sue McDonald’s had their case thrown out of court.
My two cents.
Ah, but Catherine, in your zeal for facts and logic you are overlooking the similarities that make Big Food and Big Tobacco equally attractive targets for the trial lawyers:
(a) Lots of money.
(b) The desire to blame others for our problems (whether the problem is being fat or smoking).
The lots of money ensures that suit after suit will be brought. The desire to blame others ensures that juries will hand down big awards.
That’s it. That’s all you need. All distinctions fade into insignificance once these two essential elements are in hand.
I’ve thought for a while that lawyers may be the equivalent in the American economy to state bureaucrats in most European economies.
Is it true that the number of qualified US lawyers has quadrupled to roughly one million during the forty years since 1960?
mark: I don’t know, but I heard it said years ago that the US has 70% of all the lawyers in the world. I can’t imagine it’s gotten better since then.
Not only will the suits continue, the sewers will site Kraft’s action as evidence.
Option 1: “Why, they knew all along they were selling DEATH! They could have made their food healthier at any time!”
Option 2: “By announcing these so-called improvements to their products, they deceived my client into thinking that a package Kraft Singles or a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese at every meal was a healthy diet.”
Why, rvman, you show real legal talent. Ever considered a career in the law?
I’ve been off the Net for a few hours while the remnants of “Tropical Storm Bill” passed through coastal Carolina. I’m now catching up on comments here at Samizdata.
But I see no convincing argument that Big Food = Big Tobacco, at least not in the American tort arena. It may be true that an inexhaustible number of Americans hope to “win the lottery” with a big tort claim victory. But it does not follow that an unlimited number of US judges or juries stand ready to humor such SOBs.
Entire books have been written on the problematic legal situation of tobacco in America in the mid- and late-20th century. People are free, of course, to suggest that “the sky is (similarly) falling” with respect to fatty foods. But the case hasn’t yet been made in American courts, and it hasn’t been made here in these comments.
Hm. I have to agree with the first comment. Considering how long tobacco companies held out I do not think there is a real legal trend. You also have to remember that it is juries that award the sums you see in newspapers, and judges quitely make it tiny, without the newspapers picking it up.
Moreover, I do not see a way for Kraft to lose on this. They benefit in three ways:
1. Good publicity.
2. Selling less food per package for the same amount of money seems like a good business idea.
3. Selling more packages, because people know they are getting less in each package and paying the same price per package as before, looks like a great business idea.
Also, let’s not forget that altria, kraft’s parent company is none other than Phillip Morris, probably the most experienced litigation-wise US company in this type of suits. They know what they are doing. Despite all the taxes thrown their way they are *still* the one company to deliver double-digit growth for more than two decades.
I would think you guys at Samizdata would have seen how this is a good business and publicity ploy, not a capitulation before the overbearing masses of complainers.
Lack of exercise leads to obesity, too. The trial lawyers could go after video game and computer manufacturers. Not to mention blog hosting services.
I believe the largest legal liability from these kind of cases resulted from asbestos. I also recall the claims brought Lloyds down.
I think at root the problem is the belief that laws solve problems, and the more laws we have the more problems we solve. My view is that with laws there is a ‘law’ of rapidly diminishing returns and that most result in large costs and little benefit.
Given the massively disproportionate influence lawyers have over the legislative process (talk about foxes in charge of the henhouse), the solution must result in fewer lawyers involved in making laws.
Representation by lottery anyone?
I see a great bit of cunning from kraft here. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t they proposing to sell slightly smaller portions?
And does anyone think they are going to reduce prices in proportion, hmm?
“In the U.S., and sadly, increasingly also here in the UK, the idea that the consumer should adopt the posture of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is on the decline. We are increasingly told that we are all victims, passive suffers of the blandishments of big, evil, and mostly multinational corporations…”
But not to worry, because Big Brother is watching out for you.
I know Kraft isn’t the government (officially), but this latest move to honor the good citizens smacks of the same tune being sung by the Bush Regime: we really are your friend, no matter how rich we be.
But there’s another facet at play here, too–that people don’t HAVE to mind the store, so to speak, especially since they weren’t doing a very good job of it to begin with–hence, the obesity, or lung cancer, or whatever the negative efforts happen to be.
Puppets is what me thinks they would all like us to be… puppets on Kraft Macaroni ‘n String.