|
Why is that food processing
and commerce are not strictly regulated by law so as to
prevent health problems generated by an inadequate diet?
Unhealthy products encourage an unhealthy diet, appealing
the consumer by their availability within reach and the
invading advertising. If the food producers are controlled
by health officials, then it must be that the regulations
are too lax in as far as marketed foods are concerned.
Everyone knows that, for
instance, hydrogenated oils and partially hydrogenated
oils are highly unhealthy. Tons of studies and informative
material have been published, yet there is a population
segment that still falls into traps saying that margarine
is a "healthier alternative for butter, full of
vitamins", when in fact the trans-fatty acids it
contains surpass the "healthy benefits" it
offers. For this particular case, all foods containing
hydrogentated oils (if the law allows their production,
though it shouldn't) should have a health hazard warning
(like those on the cigarette packs), saying something like
"This product contains trans-fatty acids that
increase the risk of heart disease". Thus, people
would be constantly reminded of the bad effects of such
products on health.
Generally, when it comes to
foods and dieting, people should be advised of the
potential inconvenience that might occur due to some
ingredients or the way the food is prepared.
Take for instance the case
of the release of so many diets that are not documented,
not officially controlled and approved, promissing great
things but not being explicit about the great problems
they generate. Such as the very popular Atkins, for
instance, which is a real danger to health.
I wondered why such
anti-health practices are not forbidden? Oh, pardon me!
Why should I wonder? It's obvious: in an ever growing
pragmatic course of events, the industrial interests have
overpassed the interest for the health of people.
At this point, the role of
the well-informed consumer is decisive for his own health.
And if people are not fully convinced by so many
scientific studies, informative articles and materials,
then they surely become when finding out of the multitude
of lawsuits against food producers (such as Kraft Foods
Inc, the producers of Oreo cookies), fast food chains
(McDonald's) or promoters of diets (such as the Atkins
diet).
The producers of the
popular Oreo cookies, Kraft Foods Inc were sued in 2003 by
the attorney Stephen Joseph, who based his accusations on
a provision of the civil code of California saying that
manufacturers are liable for products if the consumer is
not advised of the products' unsafety. He rightfully
claimed that the public was not aware of the high content
of trans-fats in Oreos. He declared that he sued out of
concern for the public health and that no money was
requested in the lawsuit, which he finally withdrew,
explaining that the publicity on this case had made people
aware of the health risks enhanced by the product. Anyway,
if the lawsuit was intented as bad publicity for the
Oreos, the aim was not reached, as Kraft Foods Inc will
continue to produce Oreos in a trans-fat free version.
Another famous case of
litigation is the suit from 2002 against McDonald's. The
lawsuit was filed by the lawyer Samuel Hirsch on behalf of
some obese children. The lawer sustained that the fast
food producer mislead the consumers into believing that
the products were healthy and safe and claimed that the
children developed health problems such as diabetes, high
blood pressure and obesity because of eating McDonald's
products. The suit was dismissed on the grounds that no
one is forced to eat at McDonald's and that the law has
not the role to moderate individuals' excesses.
A recent date "diet
trial" is going on in Florida. The suit was filed by
53-year-old Jody Gorran against Atkins Nutritionals on May
26, 2004. The plaintiff claims that after going on Atkins
diet his cholesterol level increased so much that he
needed angioplasty in order to unblock an artery. In
addition to financial damages, there is also the request
that the company warns the public of the potential dangers
of a diet favoring meats, cheeses and other high-fat
proteins by labeling their products. The sequel is yet to
come.
Even if some of these
lawsuits started out of reasons beyond humanitarian, (as
for instance the chase for money from damages that such
important companies would pay) they have a positive
result, namely, the publicity around such cases arises
questionning, gives people the idea of doubt, the
"assumption of guilt".
|
About
The Author
Laura
Ciocan writes for http://www.dietsindex.com/
where you can find more information about
diets.
Please feel
free to use this article in your
Newsletter or on your website. If you use
this article, please include the resource
box and send a brief message to let me
know where it appeared: mailto:lauracio@gmail.com
lauracio@gmail.com |
|
|
