don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Have you heard about the lawsuit against Oreo cookies? I'm not making this up. An article in the New York Times (May 14, 2003) entitled "A Suit Seeks to Bar Oreos as a Health Risk" by Marian Burros described the action brought by Stephen L. Joseph, a San Francisco lawyer. The suit was filed in Marin County Superior Court against Kraft Foods, the maker of Oreos. The plaintiff wants an injunction ordering Kraft Foods to stop selling these allegedly ghastly cookies to children in California. I suppose if this succeeds, he will take similar action elsewhere to protect the rest of us.

Mr. Joseph's "beef" is similar in nature to grievances filed last year against McDonald's, Burger King and a few other fast-food emporiums (dismissed by a federal court) -- that fatty foods are hazardous to our health. In the Oreos case, the villain ingredient is partially hydrogenated vegetable oil or trans fat. That's the stuff that makes the chocolate cookies crisp and their filling creamy. The suit claims the glop is so dangerous children shouldn't eat it. If it's THAT dangerous, maybe adults shouldn't eat it, either! This oil is found in 40 percent of prepared foods, including most cookies, crackers and microwave popcorn, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. John Banzhaf, the self-styled 'legal terrorist' who pioneered tobacco litigation in the 1960s," contends that studies suggest that fat-laden food can produce the same sorts of changes in the brain as powerful drugs. Food industry experts deny this, claiming that no evidence exists for such an extreme position and that trans fat is not, as some suggest, the Mother of all evil-doing fast food. Whether they are successful or not, these lawsuits and the attention they receive in the media have "turned the spotlight on some probable risks for obesity, heart disease and other health problems," according to the Times story.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? How about consumer choice? There are a lot of things on the market today that are not particularly good for us, particularly if eaten in ridiculous quantities. What else will disappear from the store shelves if this trend to litigate against dubious ingredients catches on?

Oreos have been a treat for many since 1912. I have had more than a few of them myself, and I'm not dead yet. Yet, the fact that the Kraft Corp. is busy testing alternatives to trans fats in all its snack foods is a little unsettling, as is the fact that Frito-Lay (owned by PepsiCo. Inc.) eliminated trans fat from its product Doritos and other snacks. Maybe there's something to this case.

However, you have to wonder -- are lawsuits the best way to improve the American diet, or even to protect kids from dangerous products targeted primarily at them? What about parental rights and responsibilities? Isn't the somewhat "free market" the best mechanism or "invisible hand" to guide what we eat (or choose not to eat?) As the Libertarians put it, do we want "the food police, judges, politicians and litigation-happy health nuts" protecting the public health or are there other safeguards better suited for the kind of society we desire?

As a big fan of the foundation wellness ethic of personal responsibility, I'm not impressed with the attack on Oreos, nor was I wild about the attempts to force McDonald's, Burger King and the others into doing the right thing, that is, offering healthy choices. If people want to eat trans fatty acids or take acid, for that matter, I say, "Go for it." This is America, for goodness sakes. Don't we love freedom -- freedom of choice, expression and all of that? My sentiments are similar to those of the website called "Overlawyered.com," which claims that the American legal system "too often turns litigation into a weapon against guilty and innocent alike, erodes individual responsibility, rewards sharp practice, enriches its participants at the public's expense and resists even modest efforts at reform and accountability." Just so. Enough already.

Just as this essay was about to be posted, news came that Mr. Joseph withdrew his suit! Furthermore, he announced that he "only wanted to get the word out about the dangers of unlabeled fats contained in the popular black and white cookies...and now everybody knows about trans fat." David Bernstein, a George Mason University law professor, said, "lawsuits are often extraordinarily effective as bids for attention." So, it was all a big ruse, a bid for attention. Well, there's a lesson in this, I suspect.

I'm going to file a lawsuit! I'm going to sue somebody. I'm going to sue because 64 percent of Americans are overweight and out of shape. Somebody's going to pay for that! Yet, whom shall I sue? To do such a thing, I have to BLAME somebody, which is not a wellness-oriented thing to do and besides, aren't the victims in this case the same folks who are ultimately responsible for getting sufficient exercise and good nutrition? On second thought, a wellness lawsuit might not be the best way "to get the word out" about the dangers of sedentary living and poor diet patterns, since everybody already knows as much. As bids for attention go, such a suit might not be such a good ruse. It might backfire! Instead, I'll stick to writing essays, producing the Ardell Wellness Report and giving speeches -- and enjoying an Oreo cookie, every now and then.

Be well and always look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MENTAL DOMAIN under the skill area of effective decisions. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell