That's the ironic thing about this entire post.

People making comments like this
are bigger fools than the lawyers they are trying to label as idiots. The ironic thing is that the lawyer is actually looking out for your health and interests and you're bashing him for it. Hilarious.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DJSang
[B]

Yeah, there are, but there's also too many fat people too...

 

And I disagree with Honda606. There may be some lawyers who are looking out for other people's welfare, but I suspect the majority are looking out for their pocketbook. At least ones similar to this shmuck trying to get Oreo's banned. Can anybody tell me without a doubt that he was not paid to drop it?
IF he didn't get a dime, or free PR for his firm, then I apologize.

 

DJ, there are plenty of healthy alternatives.

Oreo's are no addicting, I really think the issue lies with the individual, not the company itself

 

Today's USAToday OPed page has excerpts from oreo editorials

"The Denver Post in an editorial: ''Normally, we don't consider California in awarding our uncoveted Doofus Award because it has a decidedly unfair advantage, owing to an overwhelming surplus of doofuses. We're making an exception, though, for the San Francisco lawyer who filed a lawsuit (now being withdrawn) demanding that Oreo cookies be banned from sale to children . . . claiming that trans fat -- the hydrogenated oil that makes the cookies firm and their filling creamy -- is so dangerous that children shouldn't eat it. . . . List trans fat content on labels? Sure. Ban the sale of Oreos to children? No -- that's taking 'nanny state-ism' way too far.''

St. Louis Post-Dispatch in an editorial: ''On the one hand, we'd hate to see kids get heart disease. On the other hand, we'd hate to think of being a kid without Oreos -- though, hmmm. If the kids can't eat them, that's more for us grown-ups. And the government will get our Oreos when it pries them from our cold, dead, chocolaty fingers.''

Integrate said
"Anyone know the risks of taking in these trans fats? Compared to, let's say, ephedra?"

Short answer=no. Longer answer=it depends. it's like asking what is the risk of driving in the wet on worn tires versus the risk of not wearing your seatbelt. Risks from trans fats are longterm and depend on an individuals cardiovascular risk factors. if one is over weight, with high cholesterol, a family history of heart disease or stroke, has high blood pressure, and smokes, lots of trans fats are a bad idea. But they won't kill anyone tommorrow. Ephedra has killed a few folks- think of it as superstrength caffeine (but of course, no one has any idea how potent a given herbal ephedra preparation has, because they are completely unregulated...), that is particularly bad if one has high blood pressure.