Unfair food: obesity litigation twist.
In the January issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Daynard and a co-author note that most of these statutes "do not require a showing that the defendant's misbehavior caused a specific illness." Indeed, "many state consumer protection statutes do not require a showing that individual plaintiffs relied on the [defendant's] misrepresentations."
Shortly after the article appeared, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) took Daynard's advice and ran with it, announcing a lawsuit against Kellogg, maker of sugary breakfast cereals and other products the center thinks kids should not be eating, and Viacom, owner of TV channels and cartoon characters used to market "nutritionally poor" food to children. Joined by the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and two parents, CSPI said it planned to seek billions of dollars in damages under a Massachusetts law prohibiting "unfair or deceptive acts or practices."
The lawsuit argues that children "are intrinsically deceived and abused by encouragement to eat unhealthy junk foods" and are therefore injured every time they see an ad for Apple Jacks on Nickelodeon or a box of Sponge-Bob SquarePants Pop-Tarts in the supermarket. By CSPI's reckoning, each such exposure is worth at least $25 in statutory damages, whether or not parents actually buy the food.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Article Type:||Brief article|
|Date:||May 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||In the last two years, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has spent $1 million trying to convince residents their tap water is not only...|
|Next Article:||Accidental drug war: Medicare benefits that bankrupt.|