Sunday, July 03, 2005
This makes me sick
Yesterday on the Metro I saw an advertisement that attracted my attention. It was titled "Got lactose intolerance?" and showed a bunch of people clutching their tummies and looking to get into the bathroom. The ad claimed that 75% of people are lactose intolerant, and an even higher proportion of African-American and other minority groups are so. Finally, the ad states that if you are lactose intolerant you might be able to participate in a lawsuit. Curious, I went to the Milk Makes Me Sick website. Here's the most pertinent text:
This is the sort of thing that makes people think ill of lawyers (no offense to my co-bloggers, all of whom are upstanding members of the bar). Please explain to me the justification behind this lawsuit. While it is true that one can have a healthy diet that does not include milk, it's hardly fair to castigate the milk industry for emphasizing the beneficial aspects of its product. People are allergic to all sorts of things which are otherwise healthful. Should everyone who has an allergy sue the maker of the product which makes them allergic because said producer had the unmitigated gall to advertise their product? If so, let me be the first to line up everyone who has a seafood allergy in mass lawsuit against Red Lobster.
As for the labels: why stop there? Why don't we attach brochures to every item sold in stores warning of the possible ill effects? The entire can of peanuts can have a label warning the buyer of the existence of peanut allergies. Not only will it inform the consumer of the detrimental effects of said allergy, but it might also go into excruciating detail about how a person might die from said allergy. Why not have a cartoon of someone chocking to death on a peanut? I can just see it now, a picture of some poor sap lying dead on the ground, with Mr. Peanut poking his cane at the poor man's chest, cackling with delight.
Well, good luck to the folks at Milk makes Me Sick anyway. You know I was wondering what John Edwards was up to nowadays. Now we know. I can only picture the closing arguments of the civil trial.
But the dairy industry’s deceptive marketing keeps the public in the dark about this common condition. It spends millions of dollars on advertising designed to give the false impression that milk is a necessary part of a healthy diet. The industry even encourages lactose-intolerant people to continue drinking milk and consuming other dairy products.So let's sue the milk industry because it attempts to induce people to drink milk? Those evil, vile bastards.
Consumers deserve the truth: There is no reason for people with lactose intolerance to drink milk. Milk does not offer any nutrients that cannot be found in more healthful foods, and dairy products can cause acute distress to lactose-intolerant people. All consumers can be harmed by the artery-clogging saturated fat and cholesterol in dairy products.
That’s why the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine intends to file suit against dairy producers on behalf of D.C. residents who are lactose intolerant. In addition to seeking compensation for those who have been harmed, the lawsuit will seek a court order mandating that warning labels about lactose intolerance be placed on all milk sold in the District of Columbia.
This is the sort of thing that makes people think ill of lawyers (no offense to my co-bloggers, all of whom are upstanding members of the bar). Please explain to me the justification behind this lawsuit. While it is true that one can have a healthy diet that does not include milk, it's hardly fair to castigate the milk industry for emphasizing the beneficial aspects of its product. People are allergic to all sorts of things which are otherwise healthful. Should everyone who has an allergy sue the maker of the product which makes them allergic because said producer had the unmitigated gall to
As for the labels: why stop there? Why don't we attach brochures to every item sold in stores warning of the possible ill effects? The entire can of peanuts can have a label warning the buyer of the existence of peanut allergies. Not only will it inform the consumer of the detrimental effects of said allergy, but it might also go into excruciating detail about how a person might die from said allergy. Why not have a cartoon of someone chocking to death on a peanut? I can just see it now, a picture of some poor sap lying dead on the ground, with Mr. Peanut poking his cane at the poor man's chest, cackling with delight.
Well, good luck to the folks at Milk makes Me Sick anyway. You know I was wondering what John Edwards was up to nowadays. Now we know. I can only picture the closing arguments of the civil trial.
At 5:00 Jim's intestinal tract was saying everything's okay.Well, it beats having to be John Kerry's running mate.
At 5:05 Jim's intestinal tract was sending warning signals to Jim's brain.
At 5:10 Jim's intestinal tract was saying, "release me now."
At 5:12 Jim's intestinal tract was saying, "if you don't get to a bathroom stat, it ain't gonna be pretty."
At 5:13 Jim's intestinal tract failed, and Jim was left with a brown surprise.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 9:31 PM
