Less than a year ago we let you know about a coming wave of lawsuits that trial lawyers hope will fulfill their decade-in-the-making ambition to make food companies their next deep-pocketed victims. Calling food addictive is a pie-in-the-sky idea that food cop Kelly Brownell believes “could change the legal landscape.”
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported how far the outrageous campaign has come. We know that some lawyers might not be faring so well in this economy, but one would think that those who cashed in on the tobacco lawsuits in the 1990s would still be living large. But evidently, the greed of these trial lawyers has led them back to the well:
Now, they have found the next target: food manufacturers.
More than a dozen lawyers who took on the tobacco companies have filed 25 cases against industry players…
One of the fronts of this legal fight is labeling, a favorite topic for the regulators and misled voters of California. Despite an opportunity to wait and see what the anti-progress food police might be able to gain on this year’s ballot, trial lawyers are trying to get ahead of the curve andmake their money sooner rather than later. California, already the home of one gold nugget for the trial bar, will likely host most of these attempts to attack food:
The lawyers are being selective about where these suits are filed. Most have been filed in California, where consumer protection laws tend to favor plaintiffs. Food companies are already fighting a legal battle there, spending tens of millions of dollars to stop a ballot initiative that would require them to specify genetically modified ingredients.
Among those giving these trial lawyers cover include the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), no stranger to ridiculous lawsuits. Whether it’s a bacon breakfast, fries with lunch, or even wholesome grape juice, it seems that if it’s tasty, CSPI want to sue it.
Don’t think these lawsuit addicts aren’t paying attention to the activist rhetoric, either. Just six months after Robert “No Cookies Under 18” Lustig called sugar “toxic,” a lawyer said that to some “sugar is just as deadly as poison.”
Somewhere tobacco warrior John “Sue the Bastards” Banzhaf is smiling. What’s next? Suing Lucky Charms for not being able to prove that they are, in fact “magically delicious”?