KFC Lawsuit: Too Much Trans Fat

[quote]TeeVee69 wrote:
Chinadoll, IIRC those KFC commercials ran a few years ago, when the rebirth of the Atkins diet was all the rage. The commercials presented KFC fare as being a choice for those looking for high-protein, low-carb food. I don’t think they specifically said that fried chicken was healthy for you. But the implication was obvious that if you were following an Atkins-type diet, then KFC did fit the two requirements of low-carb, high protein. At any rate, the commercials didn’t run for very long, so their impact is debatable.

Let’s not forget, “common sense” has been muddied up quite a bit for many people since the Atkins Diet was re-popularized. For folks who were used to high-carb/low-fat as the “proper diet,” to be suddenly told that the exact opposite (high-protein/high-fat/low-carb) was now the way to go, well, it’s no wonder why so many remain confused.

All KFC had to do was mention the key buzzwords in their commercial – high-protein/low-carb – and people automatically labeled it “acceptable food” in their subconscious mind. Granted, people are still fools if they believe fried chicken is healthy, but I understand where the confusion may come from.

Without a doubt, we are innundated with mixed messages these days, and it’s not easy to filter out all the noise.[/quote]

Thanks for that info about the commercials… (Your handle is cracking me up because of the question I asked about the commercials…I don’t watch you.)

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
(Your handle is cracking me up because of the question I asked about the commercials…I don’t watch you.)

[/quote]

And you don’t know how much it pains me to know that…sniff…

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
An article written by someone who doesn’t understand science. Or probably Spanish.
[/quote]

CD, that article you posted is complete rubbish. It changed topic 4 times, and none of the topics related to the article’s title nor have anything to do with the topic at hand.

The study the article mentions was done poorly.

Reluctance to release information about trans-fat being toxic was based on a number of things, including both uncertainties about the overall effect on health as well as corporate bottom lines.

Of course researchers wouldn’t be able to pin an increase in trans-fat consumption as the cause of heart disease. You can’t pin any one thing as the cause of heart disease, statistical methods won’t allow it to happen.

They have a bit of a point on the transient changes in blood lipid chemistry, that appears to only be important when markers of inflammation are elevated. Trans-fats will increase those in most people too, though.

Please don’t cite pop media when it comes to scientific things. They’re always wrong, and it makes you look pretty gullible and misinformed.

I’ve asked a few physiologists and dietitians what they think. They all agree that it’s unreasonable to consume trans-fats in any significant quantity and are best avoided all together. Trans-fats by themselves are dangerous and harmful to our cardiovascular health, there’s no denying that. They’re chemically dangerous and our bodies can’t deal with them. Heavy use in food production ought to be litigated.

-Dan

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
More truth in advertising: 7Up is all 100% Natural! Yeah, except that it still contains High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)which is hardly a natural ingredient. More corporate dis-information for the masses. And you can wash away inches with the Japanese Miracle Bar (of soap)this one the FTC shut down after alot of sales to “stupid” people. Corporations should be free to claim anything they want, as long as they can make lots and lots of money. Hell, they got great beachfront property in Arizona, its just a long walk to the water. Eating Pez will make the pounds drop off and after all Bowflex really is for the serious bodybuilder. No2 is still the best supplement on the market and Heroin is not addictive (the guy on the street corner told me so). We don’t need more lawsuits we need truth in advertising and as long as people blame the user, the seller will always get away with more…[/quote]

We need more people accepting that they can’t walk through life without an education or researching this shit themselves. I am not FOR big companies lying in advertising, but every single example you’ve given would only fool those who are easily fooled to begin with. People like that will fall for anything. Any guy who thinks you will look like a professional bodybuilder by using a BowFlex WANTS to believe that. I know this because I was that dumb little kid in high school who actually believed Cybergenics would make me massive beyond belief. I even continued to MAKE myself believe this even after spending the 100 bucks for it and reading the damn ingredients, realizing it was just vitamins.

What idiot really believes 7-Up is just like fresh squeezed orange juice in a can? Anyone who says they do simply WANTS to. Information is too rampant today. The internet basically makes libraries a thing of the past. People have no excuse anymore and their stupidity is not the fault of big companies.

I have never seen a KFC commerical claiming it was the road for those on the Atkins diet. Even if they did say it, anyone who wouldn’t immediately laugh at that DESERVES what they get.

Yes, educating yourself is hard work. Yes, it takes a long time and doesn’t come easy. Yes, it does require you to have the self determination to not simply be part of the crowd. Isn’t that the message we should be sending? Exactly when do people start taking responsibility for their own actions?

It is a companies fault if they tell me they fixed my motorcycle when in reality, they used faulty parts for repair and it breaks down on me. It is not a company’s fault if they say, “our fried chicken is ALL NATURAL” and some fat ass gets to over 400lbs and dies of a heart attack from eating there every day. In the first case, it was the company’s duty to do what I paid them to do. It would not be their duty to inform me that their advertisement of “best motorcycle in the world” wasn’t really the best.

[quote]Miserere wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
Great article Wayland. And OMG, the viewpoint of those people:

-“He also suggests that human beings have no more control over their food choices than animals in a cage.”

-“Obesity is not merely a matter of individual responsibility. Such suggestions are naive and simplistic.”

-PETA medical “expert” Neal Barnard tells tales of food addiction, arguing that “it’s high time we stopped blaming ourselves for over-eating.”

Common sense isn’t.[/quote]

Isn’t what?

:slight_smile:

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
More truth in advertising: 7Up is all 100% Natural! Yeah, except that it still contains High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)which is hardly a natural ingredient. More corporate dis-information for the masses. And you can wash away inches with the Japanese Miracle Bar (of soap)this one the FTC shut down after alot of sales to “stupid” people. Corporations should be free to claim anything they want, as long as they can make lots and lots of money. Hell, they got great beachfront property in Arizona, its just a long walk to the water. Eating Pez will make the pounds drop off and after all Bowflex really is for the serious bodybuilder. No2 is still the best supplement on the market and Heroin is not addictive (the guy on the street corner told me so). We don’t need more lawsuits we need truth in advertising and as long as people blame the user, the seller will always get away with more…[/quote]

Truth in advertising I agree with.

And those examples are a far cry from trans fat content should be disclosed.

IMHO, yes, KFC should disclose, if they haven’t already, that their fat contains trans fats. But no, KFC is not responisible for people believing that deep fried chicken is healthy.

And whose choice is it to use Heroin? NOT THE USERS? Are sellers really advertising that their Heroin is healthy? And should John Doe really be able to attribute his Heroin use, something illegal to boot, to the fault of falsely advertising the product known to be harmful, if the drug dealer says “this will make you feel REALLY good”, thereby implying in the user’s mind that he/she is saying it will improve ones health?

What about television commercials that imply that girls will jump your bones if you use Axe body spray? Should we then be allowed to SUE that big corporation if guys use it and never get laid and subsequently suffer a poor self esteem? Is it the FAULT of the company that a certain segment of the population believes those ads? And if this is false advertising that is misleading such a helpless public, then we really REALLY REALLY need to step up our game as a large number of products falsely advertise in this way day in and day out.

The bowflex commercial shows a 50-year old woman who looks 35. Is this false advertising? It can lead certain consumers to believe that they too will look 15 years younger? What if it doesn’t happen for them, is Bowflex falsely advertising? Should only free weights be allowed to say they produce results? What about people who DO have results from Bowflex? What then?

And 7-up. Should they be sued for not having a written disclaimer on their cans: Warning: Causes cavities? Is that 7-UP’s responsibility to ensure that the public is aware that sugar causes cavities? Is the majority of the public THAT ignorant? And 7-up is obviously a processed product-- do they really need the disclaimer Warning: 7-Up is a highly processed product and should not be confused with health food products. How many disclaimers does society need for everything? Are people truly that senseless?

And again, I don’t watch television or maybe this is before my time, but has Pez really advertised that you can lose weight by eating it?

And if the public is that ignorant, how do they function from day to day, shave without slitting their throat (warning: shavers can cut your skin, even a jugular artery, and cutting your jugular artery can kill you), showering without scalding themselves head to toe (warning: the hot water can severely burn your skin), drive without dying on the way to work (warning: drive defensively), arrive in their office intact (warning: walk carefully up stairs or you could fall and become very seriously injured or die), do their jobs (warning: paper cuts, staples can puncture, stressful situations over time can lead to health problems), GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL, etc.?

And if people are that upset about the scourge on society by big companies, why not place that emphasis on known killers, like Cigarette Smoking and Alcohol? Why should a defnitely for sure known killer such as cigarettes even be legal? And why buy any products from big corporations in the first place?

And corporations are not free to claim anything they want, not by any stretch of the imagination. The FDA does regulate the large corporations, based upon hard evidence, studies and the like.

Even the courts acknowledge that people have the responsiblity to use a reasonable measure of common sense.

I, and many many others in society, see nothing wrong with the expectation that people use a reasonable measure of common sense and see themselves as responsible for their own actions, and this mindset would be of great benefit to anyone. These very basic concepts seem to be politically incorrect to some members of society.

[quote]TeeVee69 wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
(Your handle is cracking me up because of the question I asked about the commercials…I don’t watch you.)

And you don’t know how much it pains me to know that…sniff…[/quote]

OK I’ll watch you. Are you controlled by remote?

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
An article written by someone who doesn’t understand science. Or probably Spanish.

CD, that article you posted is complete rubbish. It changed topic 4 times, and none of the topics related to the article’s title nor have anything to do with the topic at hand.

The study the article mentions was done poorly.

Reluctance to release information about trans-fat being toxic was based on a number of things, including both uncertainties about the overall effect on health as well as corporate bottom lines.

Of course researchers wouldn’t be able to pin an increase in trans-fat consumption as the cause of heart disease. You can’t pin any one thing as the cause of heart disease, statistical methods won’t allow it to happen.

They have a bit of a point on the transient changes in blood lipid chemistry, that appears to only be important when markers of inflammation are elevated. Trans-fats will increase those in most people too, though.

Please don’t cite pop media when it comes to scientific things. They’re always wrong, and it makes you look pretty gullible and misinformed.

I’ve asked a few physiologists and dietitians what they think. They all agree that it’s unreasonable to consume trans-fats in any significant quantity and are best avoided all together. Trans-fats by themselves are dangerous and harmful to our cardiovascular health, there’s no denying that. They’re chemically dangerous and our bodies can’t deal with them. Heavy use in food production ought to be litigated.

-Dan

[/quote]

I don’t at all believe that article. I was posting it to show what the media is saying. And please, no personal attacks.

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
What about television commercials that imply that girls will jump your bones if you use Axe body spray? Should we then be allowed to SUE that big corporation if guys use it and never get laid and subsequently suffer a poor self esteem? [/quote]

What the…? You mean AXE won’t really do that for me?

(Searches frantically for receipt…)

Good post CD.

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
TeeVee69 wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
(Your handle is cracking me up because of the question I asked about the commercials…I don’t watch you.)

And you don’t know how much it pains me to know that…sniff…

OK I’ll watch you. Are you controlled by remote?

[/quote]

I’m on whenever you want me and controllable by whatever means is most convenient. 24/7.

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
I don’t at all believe that article. I was posting it to show what the media is saying. And please, no personal attacks.
[/quote]

Oh, okay. Sorry about that - you may want to include that the next time you post an article though :slight_smile: Wouldn’t have said the thing about gullibility if you’d mentioned it.

-Dan

[quote]TeeVee69 wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
TeeVee69 wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
(Your handle is cracking me up because of the question I asked about the commercials…I don’t watch you.)

And you don’t know how much it pains me to know that…sniff…

OK I’ll watch you. Are you controlled by remote?

I’m on whenever you want me and controllable by whatever means is most convenient. 24/7.[/quote]

What buttons should I press?

:slight_smile:

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
What about television commercials that imply that girls will jump your bones if you use Axe body spray? Should we then be allowed to SUE that big corporation if guys use it and never get laid and subsequently suffer a poor self esteem? Is it the FAULT of the company that a certain segment of the population believes those ads? And if this is false advertising that is misleading such a helpless public, then we really REALLY REALLY need to step up our game as a large number of products falsely advertise in this way day in and day out.[/quote]

Good example. To make a blanket statement as if no company can advertise anything other than absolute truth in their ads is stupid. There would be no reason for commercials. They should just show a box with a name on it with the words, “Please buy me” written underneath for everything on tv. Then again, someone will probably sue because “please” compelled them to buy it out of pity.

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
I don’t at all believe that article. I was posting it to show what the media is saying. And please, no personal attacks.

Oh, okay. Sorry about that - you may want to include that the next time you post an article though :slight_smile: Wouldn’t have said the thing about gullibility if you’d mentioned it.

-Dan[/quote]

No problem. I actually intended to post something about the article and the trans fats content of the foods that I posted after the article then received a phone call to go to the beach and the beach won over what I was going to post. :slight_smile:

Anyway, you guys know I hate to go back and forth and know I truly do love my T-Nation buddies…off to the gym with my beautiful girl friend and to enjoy the weekend. Love love you guys. Enjoy your weekend!

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
TeeVee69 wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
TeeVee69 wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
(Your handle is cracking me up because of the question I asked about the commercials…I don’t watch you.)

And you don’t know how much it pains me to know that…sniff…

OK I’ll watch you. Are you controlled by remote?

I’m on whenever you want me and controllable by whatever means is most convenient. 24/7.

What buttons should I press?[/quote]

Hehehe… You’ve already successfully pushed all the right buttons. The reception’s coming in loud and clear.

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
And 7-up. Should they be sued for not having a written disclaimer on their cans: Warning: Causes cavities? Is that 7-UP’s responsibility to ensure that the public is aware that sugar causes cavities? Is the majority of the public THAT ignorant? And 7-up is obviously a processed product-- do they really need the disclaimer Warning: 7-Up is a highly processed product and should not be confused with health food products. How many disclaimers does society need for everything? Are people truly that senseless?
[/quote]

7Up’s latest ad campaign claims it is now 100% Natural. This imply’s on their part that it is now a different product. They got in trouble once before during the “caffeine free” era, for implying it had the caffeine removed when it never had it to start with.

I am not looking for disclaimers I am looking for False Advertising. I buy all my groceries (or at least the large part) at Whole Foods, I would be really pissed to find out the vegtables that I have been buying I have some cancer causing chemical sprayed on them because it was cheap bug-killer and in court it was MY fault for not looking further in to where they buy their vegatbles, because the truth was hidden somewhere in a case study.

Your right that lawsuits are out of control, but you are overlooking corporate responsibilty. Nobody cares about quality or safety only their bottom line. In that thought I guess you are also alright with buying clothes made from child “slave” labor.

That too would be a frivolous lawsuit. Be glad there are fighters out there, otherwise you would be buying poison at the store. read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair and the frivolus lawsuits with the meat-packing industry.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
JS, thanks for clarifying the Mickey D’s case. I’ve done it so many times I’ve gotten tired of writing about it. The key to that case, as JS noted, wasn’t that a stupid lady spill hot coffee on herself. It was that the coffee was waaay hotter than the rest of the industry. I believe it actually left some blistering on her skin. I’m no expert in restaurant management, but a hot beverage shouldn’t be heated to the point of blistering. And the jury found Mickey D’s only like 5% liable, meaning most of the blame fell on the lady.

The fact that people will get careless and spill hot liquid is very foreseeable. One of the bad things about that case was that the lady really was stupid - she put the coffee between her legs while she was going through the drive thru and it spilled when she stopped her car. I gave a scenario of a more sympathetic plaintiff. What if a lady and her infant were waiting inside when some asshole who was late for work bumped into her and spilled the hot coffee on the infant, leaving severe blisters on the infant’s face. Does that change the perspective?

Someone once responded to this hypothetical with the argument that McDonald’s should not have been punished for heating its coffee better than its competitors. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that heating coffee twice as hot as the rest of the industry is “better.” A company cannot compete at all costs. A company must compete fairly and with safety in mind. I can design an SUV that’s “better” than the competition by giving it less expensive, inferior brake pads. And who needs all that steel? I’ll add an inferior frame to my SUV. This will produce a less expensive vehicle that I can sell more cheaply than the competition. I’ll make millions.

But what if this SUV is in an accident that result in an entire family being killed. The accident report said that with better brakes and a stronger frame, the family could have survived. Obviously, I, as the designer, did not cause the accident. But, am I at least partly responsible for the deaths?[/quote]

Thanks, Mike. That’s definitely a more thorough summary then what I said. I was just saying what I remembered from what our civ pro teacher told us.

Totally agreed, China. It’s only when companies are misleading to a degree that a rationale, reasonable person can’t see through their spin that they should be liable

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Totally agreed, China. It’s only when companies are misleading to a degree that a rationale, reasonable person can’t see through their spin that they should be liable[/quote]

Wow JS, you said what I meant to say after my 100,000 words in just one paragraph! GENIUS!!!