NEW YORK (Reuters) - Starbucks Corp. may be next on the target list of a consumer-health group that this week sued the operator of the KFC fried chicken restaurant chain for frying foods in oils high in harmful trans fat.
It's one thing if they're lying about what's in their products, but other than that, why is it litigable for a company to fry food "in oils high in harmful trans fat"? And did I just invent another new word in that last sentence?
What exactly are Starbucks and KFC doing wrong? Don't like their products, don't buy them.
F'ing trial lawyers. F'ing Center for Science In The Public Interest. I hope the judge smacks them down for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
12 comments:
As an admitted Starbucks addict, I know firsthand what drinking too many of their frou frou drinks can do to you. I had to switch to lattes and coffee for the preservation of my waistline. However, they make nutrition and ingredient information available to their public so it's not as if I was duped into thinking that those drinks were low cal. The bigger issue with me now is the amount of money I spend buying Starbucks each week. However, once again, the prices are posted. I am responsible for my own actions, whether it is eating unhealthily or spending too much money. I have no right to sue anybody over it. This is absolutely ridiculous.
One quick point here:
Trans Fatty Acids are man made. They are artificial. Their negative heath consequences are well known and well documented.
It’s not like they are suing over the use of lard or butter.
This is a lawsuit regarding the use of an artificial poison to make products taste better.
I read the original article, and what really blew my mind was that one of the organizers of the lawsuit is the Starbucks Workers Union. The article says: "The union contends that Starbucks staff gain weight when they work at the chain. They are offered unlimited beverages and leftover pastries for free during their shifts." So, I guess Starbucks was also using their mind-control rays to (1) MAKE them say yes whenever free pastries are offered to them, and (2) wipe out any inkling that a caramel apple strudel might -- just maybe -- not be the healthiest thing on earth to eat.
I also liked this line from the CPSI director: "People expect foods from Dunkin' Donuts to be unhealthy, but Starbucks has more of an upper middle class, healthy, hip, politically correct facade." Leave it to people like this to turn the whole thing into class warfare.
Give me a freakin' break.
Anonymous: then don't eat them! I want my foods cooked in this stuff precisely because it's what makes the food taste good!
Robert, hear hear!
What I find humorous is how intensely leftists despise Starbuck's (second only to Wal-Mart), yet how chic and lefty Starbuck's is. Back in Indiana, when a Starbuck's had just gone in, the leftists vandalized it and destroyed property there daily, even wrote into the local paper about throwing bricks through windows and were never charged.
And Starbuck's, in their infinite stupidity, responds to this sort of criminal action by adopting hogwash "free range" coffee (or whatever it is), hoping that these thugs who don't have jobs or income will stop vandalizing them.
Leftists hating leftists. There's something downright beautiful about that.
Can you guys give the "Lefty" "Righty" thing a break for even a minute?
C'mon. It gets really old.
I agree with Darren on this one. Personal responsibility is the only answer for things like this. If people are responsible and stop eating the junk, they will change the menu.
It's actually happening at many fast food places already. Wendy's is taking the transfat out of their fries this fall. I am looking forward to trying them out.
(of course, I run 10 miles a week... so I can give myself a batch of fries every once in a while)
While it's (seriously) nice to know that we can agree on something, 40, regarding your first sentence--check out the name of this blog!
:-)
The reason lawsuits like this get filed is because sometimes judges don't smack them down. Sometimes judges agree with them and award damages!
On the fair side, however, there is a way out. When we've made up our minds that we we're through with a vampire (and it sounds like you are), we simply revoke our invitation. That's what it's called when we tell our vampire to hit the road: "Revoking our invitation."
If, vintage, the vampire you're talking about is the lawyer that takes the case, I can't revoke his invitation because there's some other leech on society willing to retain his services in hopes of gaining some lucre out of the deal.
So the vampire has his source of blood; how do we stop people from holding out their necks? Tort reform? Shame? Punishments for frivolous lawsuits?
This is similar to the whole issue that the courts took regarding marketing beer to minors. On the one hand, the ads did give the appearance that "everyone who drinks beer is beautiful". On the other hand, they are selling a product that minors are not supposed to be able to purchase. I think it's a matter of picking your own poison. There is a certain amount of personal responsibility that has to come into play. I don't want to pay a tax on my fries because some idiot managed to up his or her weight to 500 on McDonalds-tha't penalizing people that haven't done anything wrong. Personally, I seldom frequent Starbucks due to the expense plus I like the clientele at the local coffee shop better. I think some people are under the illusion that you can't get fat from healthy food, which is a lie. It's all about taking advertising with a grain of salt.
BTW...if the beer companies really want to stop sales to teens, especially girls, just point out that the calories in a beer are just about the same as a huge iced chocolate brownie. Personally, I would go for the chocolate every time.
Post a Comment