Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-13 02:49am

Well...

Kind of a stupid lawsuit, although I don't really care that much as I don't normally eat Oreos.

Trader Joe's has some chocolate sandwich cookies (without the oil in question) that taste a lot better. Although Joe-Joe's does sound kind of silly...

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-05-13 02:57am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:One more reason why I wish California would split into thirds....

Southern California, Central California & Superior California?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-05-13 03:06am

Okay I gather an Oreos is some sort of snack?

But can somone please help this Eurotrash and say what sort of snack?

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-13 03:10am

Faram wrote:Okay I gather an Oreos is some sort of snack?

But can somone please help this Eurotrash and say what sort of snack?

It is a chocolate sandwich cookie with a vanilla cream filling. Not all that nutritious, but it tastes pretty good.

They're rather small, around 3-4 cm diameter.

[Edit: Rob, getting your units confused?

]

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-05-13 05:28am

As I don't live in California this doesn't affect me. Though if they try to take my Oreos they'll have to kill me first, I'll die defending them.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-05-13 08:48am

Fuck that shit, people have been eating Oreos for YEARS

I will have them smuggled in from Canada, I will not be deprived of my Double Stuf.

If this however goes through by some 1/10000000000000000000000000000
miracle I will immediately go to the store and load the trunk of my car. then I will become a politician again so I can get them brought back! My life devoted to Oreo cooky

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-13 08:58am

The fuck?! Too dangerous to eat?!

I think they have their priorities fucked up, look at McDonalds first then tell me a simple biscuit is dangerous.

What the fuck is going on with America these days?!

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-05-13 09:04am

Damn PC types.
They'll have to send in troops to take away my Oreos. This country was made for Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of really good cookies

.
But first, to buisness!

DIE YOU SONS OF BITCHES!!!! To arms, my Oreo-eating brethens in arms! The war against California has begun!

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-13 09:45am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
What the fuck is going on with America these days?!

I'd ask the same question. Even the Soviet Union never went that far!

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-05-13 11:21am

It just occured to me that since I have no job, I have all the time in the world to drive to Reno, load my car up with Oreo cookies and smuggle them back to to California for a nice tidy profit.

Hmmmm......begins visions of becoming the next Han Solo.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-05-13 11:42am

I don't see what's so PC or Californian about this lawsuit

Anyone at any time in any state could have filed a lawsuit like this

Come on people, this is just a random quack that will get legally gunned down in the courts

edit: I noticed that a certain someone has managed to link anti-smoking measures to a stupid case like this

^67.333

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-05-13 12:03pm

Banning kids from eating Oreos is stupid, but I'm all for proper labelling of food. All packaged items need a proper nutritional breakdown, giving the amounts for each type of fat.

A few months ago, at KFC, I was happy to see a pamphlet giving the complete nutritional breakdown of everthing they sold. So although the lawsuits are stupid, they *are* leading to benefits for consumers.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-13 12:33pm

RedImperator wrote:You know, the smokers all warned you about this...alright, fine, nobody sets their oreos on fire and fills the air with secondhand transfat, but I'm going to laugh my fool head off when Big Macs and Oreos are sin taxed to three times their fair market value by the same people who made cigarettes cost $5 a pack.

Just another point, but do you see cigarette commercials during saturday morning cartoons with clowns and other puppets trying to sell you happy cigs? Or do you see the tobacco companies giving out plastic toys for every pack you buy?!?!??!

More money is spent by my government on obesiety related illnesses than smoking, and yet i still gotta pay 3.54 for my Camel Special Lights and a McDouble is only .99.... what the fuck?!?!?!?!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-13 12:53pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:It just occured to me that since I have no job, I have all the time in the world to drive to Reno, load my car up with Oreo cookies and smuggle them back to to California for a nice tidy profit.

Hmmmm......begins visions of becoming the next Han Solo.

Or Homer Simpson after alcohol was banned in Springfield.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-05-13 01:21pm

Tsyroc wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:One more reason why I wish California would split into thirds....
Southern California, Central California & Superior California?

Superior California my ass! If the World Series wasn't any indicator thenhow bout the fact then your liberal vomit-in anti warfecal protests sure did the trick.

So Cal, will always rule Nor Cal

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-13 01:24pm

Darth Fanboy wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:One more reason why I wish California would split into thirds....
Southern California, Central California & Superior California?
Superior California my ass! If the World Series wasn't any indicator thenhow bout the fact then your liberal vomit-in anti warfecal protests sure did the trick.

So Cal, will always rule Nor Cal

But you'll still buy your water from us.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-05-13 01:27pm

Everybody please calm down. This lawsuit will not result in the banning of Oreos. If it was the FDA vs. Nabisco then I would worry but a private lawsuit cannot result in the banning of this food product on a national level. What they will get is money. Key here since its obvious that this attorney is trying to distinguish this case from the McDonalds obese kids case and the tobacco cases. It's his attempt to head off the response from the defense which will undoubtably use those cases as precedent. This will settlle out of coourt for some money and most likely a label on the food products.

But we will be able to gorge ourselves on Oreos. A private lawsuit like this cannot result in a company stopping production of a product, only the government can do that and it has to prove that it is hazardous and an active danger to the general public. Tobacco is still made and we all know the effects of that. Oreos hardly fits the bill since there is a matter of consumer choice involved.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-13 02:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:They can have my Oreos when they pry them from my cold, dead hands

I feel the same, but my arsenal of guns and ammunition will allow me to last much longer. You see Wong whose ready to die for mere cookies let alone freedom from tyrants, why weapons are so important?

Anyway, I hope this suit is swiftly defeated.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 03:55pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:.
Yes, all hail the infinite wisdom of The Market. The Market is wise. The Market is all-knowing. The Market will always make the choices that are best for society as a whole, rather than allowing short-sighted profit motives to dominate. The Market is never wrong

Ya know I almost always agree with you here, but this isnt an issue like environmentalism or anything like that, this is about personal preference, if you the consumer WISH to be exposed to cigarrette smoke or not, its something that should be left up to the people to decide and if it is in the best interest of a buisiness to cater either to smokers or non-smokers, so be it. profit motives are exactly what this entire concept is based on if the buisiness can profit from having only non-smoking or having smoking they will do it.

Oreo's can be seen as the same thing, educate people about what is in the food they eat, and about healthy living in general (no one has ever argued that Oreos are good for you), if they still choose todo things that are detrimental to their health, its their problem, not mine.

No such thing as second-hand Oreos. This is a red-herring thread hijack.[/quote]

No it really really isnt there buddy. See you are right no second hand oreos, exactly so no reason to ban oreos. Likewise no second hand smoke if you CHOOSE not to go into an establishment that permits smoking. If you know they let people smoke in there, enter at your own risk. You know though perhaps you are right, maybe we shouldnt let anyone do anything that might possibly someday be proven to possibly cause harm to someone who already knows the harms of being near someone doing that. Lets make alcohol illegal cuz you know, some people they get violent when drunk, and that is a second hand case of violence. Or better lets ban cars cuz they make the air dirty and probably increase the risk of lung cancer more than second hand smoke, id wager. Or wait i got it, FIRE adds in bad things to the air too, you can get second hand smoke from fire, lets make FIRE illegal too.

Electricity can cause problems if a person touches the leads too, lets make that illegal cuz you know,someone might just one day knowing full well that it will have a negative effect on his health, decide "hey what the hell" and play with an electrical socket and die.

This is 100% perfectly analagus to second hand smoke, you as an individual know the risks involved with being near a person smoking (if you buy into the concept of second hand smoke, other than in places that are billowing with smoke, im quite sceptical about whether or not this is like cell phones causing brain cancer), and they chose to continue being near people smoking anyway.

What is more important, lets just get rid of the primary cancer causing agent in cigarrette smoke, the phosphates in the fertilizer that is used.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/tobacco/tobacco_inf.shtml

http://www.erowid.org/plants/tobacco/to ... lth3.shtml

But we are talking oreos here, not cigarrettes.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 04:01pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Likewise no second hand smoke if you CHOOSE not to go into an establishment that permits smoking.

That's like saying "no pollution in the air if you CHOOSE not to venture outside a hermetically sealed air-filtered containment chamber in your garage". It's ridiculous; if MOST public venues are polluted with second-hand smoke, it's not really a choice.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 04:26pm

umm, name one. all closed air government owned places i know of dont let you smoke.

all open air ones, yes sir they do, they also let people drive nearby.

some closed air privately owned public venues allow people to smoke, others do not. You can CHOOSE whether to go to one where they let people smoke or not, not my fault if you dont have as many options as you want as to which to do. Same way I as an occasional smoker can CHOOSE whether or not to sit in the smoking or non-smoking area of a restaurant and choose whether or not to have a smoke.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-05-13 09:41pm

Holy Sheep Dip Batman! This whole time Oreos were cookies and not some kind of health food. I guess that's why I'm 100lb overweight!

Oh wait, I'm not overweight, I'm actually slightly underweight. Somebody give this guy some Oreos!

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-05-13 09:48pm

So, is this the work of the Nutrition Nazis or the Food Fascists? Even if it's not going to result in anything very severe, it's another reason why I'm glad I live in PA, where people don't file lawsuits like that. At least not yet...

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-14 01:16am

Wicked Pilot wrote:Holy Sheep Dip Batman! This whole time Oreos were cookies and not some kind of health food. I guess that's why I'm 100lb overweight!

Oh wait, I'm not overweight, I'm actually slightly underweight. Somebody give this guy some Oreos!

Well, the whole lawsuit isn't about the fact that Oreos have fat in them. The lawsuit is trying to point out that the hydrogenated oil used in making Oreos contains a large amount of trans-fatty acids...

http://www.healthcastle.com/trans_prdox.shtml wrote:Emerging data suggests that trans fatty acids may raise blood levels of LDL cholesterol to much the same extent as saturated fatty acids. In addition, recent epidemiological studies indicate that trans fatty acid intake is associated with incidence of heart disease, and that the type, not the amount, of fat in the diet contributes to the risk of this disease. The take-away message for consumers is that trans fat and saturated fat should be at least partially replaced by monoand polyunsaturated fats in the diet.

But it's really a moot point, since the percentage of TFAs in Oreo cookies is negligible compared to the amounts in most fast food...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-14 01:42am

The reason I brought up cigarettes was not to start up this debate again--for the record, I really don't care if I'm not allowed to smoke in government buildings or if private property owners won't allow smoking in their establishments. Even without the health problems associated with secondhand smoke, most nonsmokers hate the smell, and it's rude to smoke around nonsmokers if nonsmokers can't get away from it with reasonable effort*. I brought it up because the moderate, nonsmoking public allied itself with a bunch of puritanical hatfuckers who appealed to public interest to meddle in the private affairs of smokers, and now these same people have legal precedent to go after other things they don't like. Of course Oreos aren't comparable to cigarettes in a lot of ways, but they're something unhealthy you can put in your body, they're marketed to children, they're unnecessary, and they're contributing to a national health epidemic. Don't be surprised if within ten or fifteen years, they're slapped with the same sin taxes booze and tobacco are.

*Before someone flames me for this remark, "reasonable effort" would be sitting in the nonsmoking section of the restaurant, or moving away from a smoker in an outdoor area, not something idiotic like "quit your job if your cubicle neighbors smoke".