Resize Font Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Reset Font Size

Home / Letters To The Editor

Posted On March 24, 2004
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list



Immunity with that?

By: David Martosko
Newspaper: Fort Worth Star Telegram

In response to your Wednesday editorial "Immunity with that?":

Dismissing the need for a law to block fast-food lawsuits because trial lawyers haven't yet struck pay dirt is misguided. Noted food-lawsuit cheerleader John Banzhaf already has vowed to "sue them and sue them and sue them" until a single judge or jury "opens the floodgates."

In the face of a no-holds-barred litigator like Banzhaf, who revels in being called a "legal terrorist," a doctrine of pre-emption seems prudent.

Last summer, a group of trial lawyers held a conference in Boston to "encourage and support litigation against the food industry."

Sponsors of the "cheeseburger bill" apparently took them at their word. And why not? This is the same cabal of lawyers that got rich suing tobacco companies.



printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Letters To The Editor

Immunity with that?
Dismissing the need for a law to block fast-food lawsuits because trial lawyers haven't yet struck pay dirt is misguided. read more here »

Op-Eds

California Focus: The State of California contains chemicals!
Chances are good that in the past 22 years, you've seen warning labels on everyday items cautioning that you've been exposed to chemicals that the state of California has deemed dangerous. read more here »

Food only part of obesity problem
The cause of obesity isn't what you think. read more here »


About Us | Contact Us | Please Help Us | Site Map
Ad Campaigns | Press Center | Daily News Archive | Email Subscription | Op-Eds | Cartoons | Games | Link To Us
Copyright © 1997-2008 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.