Supermarkets cry foul as FDA proposes new food labeling rule under ObamaCare

[OldMaid 2,130]

Oh dear god.

My thoughts exactly. I can't believe that anyone would argue this is a bad thing.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Someone should tell all the parties involved in all these lawsuits, Mr. 1986.

 

They're suing under other legal theories, genius.

 

I don't expect you to understand this concept though.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

They're suing under other legal theories, genius.

 

I don't expect you to understand this concept though.

I don't see where Dank, or anyone else, said they would sue under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Your examples prove nothing. First off they are settlements, so for all we know the question of whether plaintiffs could actually sue was never confronted.

So, you are saying the attorneys for the huge corporations are not aware that these suits can't be brought, and they end up settling suits that had no standing?

 

Is this what you want us to believe so your ignorance of the law isn't exposed again? :overhead:

[IGotWorms 4,059]

I don't see where Dank, or anyone else, said they would sue under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

 

The food labeling requirements that are the subject of this thread come from the FDA. Read the damn thread title.

[KSB2424 3,148]

I thought it was as common sense as the deli chicken salad being terrible for you...

What if the chicken salad was made with low fat mayo, grilled chicken and no perservatives like the other deli chicken salad? And that little tub of chicken salad was sitting beside the regular chicken salad. It's not like you can tell the difference by just looking at it, you can tell by whats on either the package it comes in or the nutritional value thingy on the back. The packaging would tell you the differenec between the fatty chicken salad and the much better for you options. Lableling and information gives the consumer OPTIONS to decide on their own.

 

Common sense is knowing that the more information the consumer has about what they are ingesting the better, for the consumer and ultimately will be for the business.

 

I'm also for limited government. That's limited government, not NO gov't. I'm for free market captitalism, but I'm not for completely un-regulated, wild wild west capitalism. The Whole Foods CEO wrote a book called Conscious Capitalism. You should check it out, its very interesting.

 

Here is a snippet:

 

In the words of Darden school of management professor and Conscious Capitalism, Inc trustee Ed Freeman:

 

 

“We need red blood cells to live (the same way a business needs profits to

 

live), but the purpose of life is more than to make red blood cells (the same

 

way the purpose of business is more than simply to generate profits).”

 

 

While making money is essential for the vitality and sustainability of a business, it is not the only or even the most important reason a business exists. Conscious businesses focus on their purpose beyond profit.We all need meaning and purpose in our lives. It is one of the things that separates us from other animals. Purpose activates us and motivates us. It moves us to get up in the morning, sustains us when times get tough and serves as a guiding star when we stray off course. Conscious Businesses provide us with this sense of meaning and purpose. By focusing on its deeper Purpose, a conscious business inspires, engages and energizes its stakeholders. Employees, customers and others trust and even love companies that have an inspiring purpose

.

[Strike 5,594]

So, you are saying the attorneys for the huge corporations are not aware that these suits can't be brought, and they end up settling suits that had no standing?

 

Is this what you want us to believe so your ignorance of the law isn't exposed again? :overhead:

 

I really hope no one on this bored really believes Worms is an actual lawyer at this point.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

So, you are saying the attorneys for the huge corporations are not aware that these suits can't be brought, and they end up settling suits that had no standing?

 

Is this what you want us to believe so your ignorance of the law isn't exposed again? :overhead:

 

Sometimes its better to settle a suit for a few million rather than waste tens of millions fighting it. Especially if plaintiffs might prevail through other, non-federal causes of action.

 

I'm done schooling you on this sh!t, BTW. I paid over 100k for my legal education, I'm not wasting my time and energy to try to teach a focking moron the law for free.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Sometimes its better to settle a suit for a few million rather than waste tens of millions fighting it. Especially if plaintiffs might prevail through other, non-federal causes of action.

 

I'm done schooling you on this sh!t, BTW. I paid over 100k for my legal education, I'm not wasting my time and energy to try to teach a focking moron the law for free.

How would it cost "tens of millions" to file a motion to dismiss based on the SC ruling you cited.

 

Real Attorney: "Hey Your Honor, this suit is yaksqueeze and can't be brought according to SC ruling such and such".

 

Judge: "Dismissed"

[TD Ryan2 316]

Dank and KSB - to follow up on your qoutes from above...

 

I thought it was common knowledge that the D'Angelos Grilled Chicken Caesar is better/healthier/lowerCalorie than the Cheesburger Sub... but it isn't and I was shocked when I looked it up.

 

KSB, that qoute from Conscious Capitalism is interesting. While I agree with it, I don't believe many Corporations operate with that philosophy. maybe I'm just a cynic.

[Frank M 181]

What if the chicken salad was made with low fat mayo, grilled chicken and no perservatives like the other deli chicken salad? And that little tub of chicken salad was sitting beside the regular chicken salad. It's not like you can tell the difference by just looking at it, you can tell by whats on the either the package it comes in or the nutritional value thingy on the back. The packaging would tell you the differenec between the fatty chicken salad and the much better for you options. Lableling and information gives the consumer OPTIONS to decide on their own.

 

Common sense is knowing that the more information the consumer has about what they are ingesting the better, for the consumer and ultimately will be for the business.

 

I'm also for limited government. That's limited government, not NO gov't. I'm for free market captitalism, but I'm not for un-regulated, wild wild west capitalism. The Whole Foods CEO wrote a book called Conscious Capitalism. You should check it out, its very interesting.

 

Here is a snippet:

 

.

 

Stop making so much sense. You're focking me up, here!!!

 

 

[Frozenbeernuts 2,270]

As long as my obama phone is safe, i dont care.

[TD Ryan2 316]

You have to realize liberals are too stoopid to figure out what to eat so they want the government to tell them. They are lazy shiftless stoners.

 

 

Must be hard to get though life being too stupid to do your own research.

 

how do you propose I do my own research if nothing is posted and if no information is provided?

 

I think you'll have to agree that the only conclusion is that those who want the information will avoid te foods/products that don't provide it. And those that don't want the information will continue to be the uninformed consumer blindly buying the same producst that are bad?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

KSB, that qoute from Conscious Capitalism is interesting. While I agree with it, I don't believe many Corporations operate with that philosophy. maybe I'm just a cynic.

You are a cynic, however the mass media and the federal government blast corporations every chance they get so you probably came by it honestly.

 

That being said, yes, there are greedy unscrupulous corporations. The good news is that they are easy to avoid and if you refuse to buy their products they will cease to exist.

[Greedo 13]

There is a vast difference between thriving and barely scraping by. Historically, that is what supermarkets do. Barely surviving. All the markets try to keep prices as low as possible, constantly trying to undercut the competition, to attract business. They make money purely on volume rather than profit margin. They will take losses on overall customer purchases just to keep them away from competitors, depending on what sales they are running that week.

 

I do all my shopping at Whole Foods, and am a shareholder. They do not follow your model above, and have an immaculate balance sheet.

 

The governments primary role in our economy is to increase costs, they can blather on all day about how they exist to maintain an organized society, but in the end they always bow to the plutocracy, they always only increase costs, and make the world an increasingly worse place to exist.

 

Regulations are due to an externality of a free market exploited to the detriment of others. Another way to put it: a couple bad apples mess it up for everyone.

 

Today, people are free to choose not to buy any food product that doesn't have the information they want printed on it.

 

That belief is not sufficient for the majority of people in this country. Fortunately.

 

Q: Am I free to go somewhere else and buy something else?

 

A: Yep.

 

Problem solved.

 

See above.

 

it's already 8 bucks for a gallon of milk. wtf else do they want?

 

also, I want them to start putting stickers on dog food so i know how many carbs the dog is getting

 

Milk is crazy cheap, and hasn't gone up in real price since I was a kid.

 

My dog food tells me how many carbs are in it.

 

How does this improve our healthcare delivery system exactly?

 

Just a supposition - when fatties see what they're actually consuming, a few of them may reconsider, and then obesity-related diseases will decline, and the resultant use of resources and expenses will decrease.

 

It is not the role of government to force a business into the type of packaging it's product can be sold in. It's the same deal as when the government does not allow a bar owner the option of smoking and non smoking environment. If the product is not dangerous to the consumer, then it's just meddling.

 

No one's forcing packaging, only what must be included on it. And I'm not sure - are you saying smoking is not dangerous to the consumer, or those around them?

 

The government wraps another tentacle around society, forcing business to raise costs to then allow the wider swath of society to subsidize the stupidity of a few, more government = more costs....ever more costs.......eliminate tort law, costs drop right away

 

Tort law exists so the Ford Pintos of the world don't continue.

 

In my MBA program, we learned about the Decision Analysis trees used by big oil to determine how much they could pollute and still make more money than the fines, thereby making pollution profitable. The majority of our society, so far, finds this concept unacceptable, and so things like punitive damages still exist.

 

The ultimate goal of this society is not low cost, contrary to what some people on this board may think.

 

I really hope no one on this bored really believes Worms is an actual lawyer at this point.

 

Is nuance so confusing?

 

My wife spends 75% of her day getting rid of frivolous lawsuits - some of which are done by settling. Settling doesn't equal guilt, standing, or a legitimate case. It means settling for a small amount is better than winning and spending more in legal fees.

[Strike 5,594]

 

Is nuance so confusing?

 

My wife spends 75% of her day getting rid of frivolous lawsuits - some of which are done by settling. Settling doesn't equal guilt, standing, or a legitimate case. It means settling for a small amount is better than winning and spending more in legal fees.

 

Worms said these people didn't have standing to sue. Ask your wife if she'd settle a case for millions with a party that didn't have standing as Worms suggested.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Is nuance so confusing?

 

My wife spends 75% of her day getting rid of frivolous lawsuits - some of which are done by settling. Settling doesn't equal guilt, standing, or a legitimate case. It means settling for a small amount is better than winning and spending more in legal fees.

Nutella settled for $3 Million.

 

Seems to me filing a motion to get a lawsuit thrown out that had no standing would be cheaper, and easier.

[KSB2424 3,148]

What are y'all even arguing over about these lawsuits? False advertising is wholly different that putting the nutritional information on the back of the product.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What are y'all even arguing over about these lawsuits? False advertising is wholly different that putting the nutritional information on the back of the product.

Dank brought up "frivolous lawsuits". Worms claimed individual can't sue, just the Govt. When proven wrong he dug out a 1986 SC ruling that had no bearing on the examples provided.

 

He has painted himself into yet another legal corner, and is feverishly trying to figure out how a steel salesman knows more about the law than he does.

 

HTH

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Worms said these people didn't have standing to sue. Ask your wife if she'd settle a case for millions with a party that didn't have standing as Worms suggested.

 

No, you're confusing the issues. Whether one has standing is not the same as whether one has a federal cause of action under FDA statutes. I never said they wouldn't have standing.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Dank brought up "frivolous lawsuits". Worms claimed individual can't sue, just the Govt. When proven wrong he dug out a 1986 SC ruling that had no bearing on the examples provided.

 

He has painted himself into yet another legal corner, and is feverishly trying to figure out how a steel salesman knows more about the law than he does.

 

HTH

 

No, you just have no idea what you're talking about, so you are easily confused.

 

The thread is about more labeling requirements per the FDA.

 

Dank hypothesized that there would be more lawsuits as a result.

 

I pointed out that an individual does not have a federal cause of action to enforce FDA requirements.

 

You brought up lawsuits that are almost certainly based on something other than FDA requirements, and are thus irrelevant to what I said.

 

HTH.

 

P.S. Why do you seem to think its important that the case establishing that there is no private right of action under the FDCA is from 1986? Do you think its no longer good simply because it was decided 27 years ago? Marbury v Madison is still good law and John Marshall issued that opinion in 1803.

[nikki2200 4]

What are y'all even arguing over about these lawsuits? False advertising is wholly different that putting the nutritional information on the back of the product.

 

Yea. This. But it doesn't matter. As long as someone can google something there is no sense trying to discuss it.

[Strike 5,594]

No, you're confusing the issues. Whether one has standing is not the same as whether one has a federal cause of action under FDA statutes. I never said they wouldn't have standing.

 

Yes you did. But keep trying to weasel out of it now. I can see why you don't want people to look at your posts as if they were actually posted by a lawyer.

 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Yes you did. But keep trying to weasel out of it now. I can see why you don't want people to look at your posts as if they were actually posted by a lawyer.

 

 

It's not my fault you try to discuss things you don't understand.

[Strike 5,594]

It's not my fault you try to discuss things you don't understand.

 

Help me understand please:

 

First off they are settlements, so for all we know the question of whether plaintiffs could actually sue was never confronted.

 

Sometimes its better to settle a suit for a few million rather than waste tens of millions fighting it.

 

So you did or didn't say that corporations settle cases for tens of millions that may not have had standing?

 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Help me understand please:

 

 

 

 

 

So you did or didn't say that corporations settle cases for tens of millions that may not have had standing?

 

 

Standing is not the same as lacking a private right of action. So no, I did not say that.

 

But let's say it were a standing issue, to appease you. The US Supreme Court has decided a ton of standing cases. So let's say you're a big corporation and somebody sues you on a claim that they arguably do not have standing for. Would you rather spend a few million to make the suit go away, or would you rather litigate the issue in district court, then on appeal to the circuit court, and then maybe even in front of the Supreme Court? The latter option could cost you a helluva lot of money and maybe you still end up losing even though you thought you had a slam dunk case. Then you're out millions of dollars and you're back at square one. Even unded the best case scenario where you win, maybe it costs a lot more to fight the battle than if you had simply settled.

 

Seriously, you do not know what you are talking about. If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school (if you can get in). Then we can go ahead and debate the finer points of the law til we're blue in the face.

[Strike 5,594]

Standing is not the same as lacking a private right of action. So no, I did not say that.

 

But let's say it were a standing issue, to appease you. The US Supreme Court has decided a ton of standing cases. So let's say you're a big corporation and somebody sues you on a claim that they arguably do not have standing for. Would you rather spend a few million to make the suit go away, or would you rather litigate the issue in district court, then on appeal to the circuit court, and then maybe even in front of the Supreme Court? The latter option could cost you a helluva lot of money and maybe you still end up losing even though you thought you had a slam dunk case. Then you're out millions of dollars and you're back at square one. Even unded the best case scenario where you win, maybe it costs a lot more to fight the battle than if you had simply settled.

 

Seriously, you do not know what you are talking about. If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school (if you can get in). Then we can go ahead and debate the finer points of the law til we're blue in the face.

 

Find me one example of a corporation saying they settled despite believing that the other party didn't even have standing. Just ONE. This is your chance to finally prove me wrong. Only caveat is that the settlement must be for at least 5 million. I'll wait while you weasel out of doing a minimal amount of research to back up your contention.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Worms is taking a major curbstomping here. Worse than his usual curbstomping on legal issues.

[Strike 5,594]

Worms is taking a major curbstomping here. Worse than his usual curbstomping on legal issues.

 

Maybe he should take his own advice and go to law school. If he can get in.

 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

[Strike 5,594]

 

That doesn't appear to be a link to a multi million dollar settlement. I'm sure that will be forthcoming though.

 

[Reality 3,121]

Worms is taking a major curbstomping here. Worse than his usual curbstomping on legal issues.

 

 

That really isn't breaking news. It's really just sad at this point.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's one thing to try to build yourself up as something by pretending to be an attorney on a FFB message board, but let's think about the alternative.

 

What if he really is an attorney, and he charges people for his advice.

 

Worse yet, what if people actually put their freedom in his hands.

[MDC 7,505]

I see that I missed nothing in this thread today.

[TD Ryan2 316]

I see that I missed nothing in this thread today.

True.

Unbelievable what these jackasses turned it into.

There was some legit stuff to discuss here.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

True.

Unbelievable what these jackasses turned it into.

There was some legit stuff to discuss here.

I'm guessing I rooned it by bringing all those links and examples of legal cases that blew Worms' position out of the water.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No, you just have no idea what you're talking about, so you are easily confused.

 

The thread is about more labeling requirements per the FDA.

 

Dank hypothesized that there would be more lawsuits as a result.

 

I pointed out that an individual does not have a federal cause of action to enforce FDA requirements.

 

You brought up lawsuits that are almost certainly based on something other than FDA requirements, and are thus irrelevant to what I said.

 

HTH.

 

Just saw this post.

 

Get back to me when you are certain, "Counselor". Then I may find more links.

 

Almost doesn't work in the legal world.

 

Worms: "Your Honor, I am almost certain it's this guy's fingerprints on the gun"

 

Worms; "Your Honor, I am almost certain this was the guy driving drunk"

[jerryskids 6,844]

I'm kinda torn because as the father of a diabetic, this kind of information is very helpful for me. But as a libertarian, I hate government intrusion. From the latter standpoint, a store doesn't get my business if it doesn't provide that info and I'm not comfortable estimating it, so they would see more business from me if they provide it.

 

A few responses to specific comments:

 

This requires the supermarket to report the nutritional information on prepared foods, like packaged foods and restaurants have to do. The supermarkets say that they have razor thin margins and can't afford to do something without passing on the costs to consumers.

 

The reality is that their margins on the prepared foods are HUGE.

Yeah but... you can't take an individual product price in a vacuum. A grocery store sells whatever it sells, it makes higher profits on some and lower profits (sometimes losses) on others, and in the end it adds it all up to create an overall profit. Increasing the cost of "high margin" individual items affects overall store profits.

 

When I go to to a restaurant and buy a Grilled Chicken and Pasta dish (for example) I might not of thought it was all that bad for me. But maybe they sautee the Chicken in a pound of butter before slapping it on the grill. Maybe they add oils to the pasta so it wont stick. Maybe they don't make their sauce fresh like they imply, but used canned sauce that has like 1500mg of sodium in it. And by the the time they put it all together this little Grilled Chicken and Whole Wheat Pasta dish they have under the "Good for you" menue items has like 60% of your daily intake of saturated fat and like 2000mg of sodium in it.

 

You can't be educated on the ingredients a restaurant used in a dish uless they tell you.

Ugh... you need education alright -- the processed flour in the pasta is worse for you than butter and oil. I'm wondering if the FDA will ever fess up that they might have been a little mistaken about food value, but I doubt it since low-fat foods is a ginormous industry with I presume a similarly sized lobby.

[Phurfur 70]

Well it seems Americans are afraid of almost everything, (eating, the weather, guns, the Tea Party, the rich, etc.) except its mounting national debt. MK-Ultra

 

The land of the free and the home of the brave!

 

They, who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Ben Franklin

[MDC 7,505]

Well it seems Americans are afraid of almost everything, (eating, the weather, guns, the Tea Party, the rich, etc.) except its mounting national debt. MK-Ultra

 

The land of the free and the home of the brave!

 

They, who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Ben Franklin

 

You add less than nothing to every discussion you're a part of here.