You’ve heard of the tons of lawsuits against tobacco because of cancer, gun manufacturers because of unwanted deaths, McDonald’s because of hot coffee burns, dot-coms because of stock price fluctuations, Cosmo because of the complex it gives to all women who are not models. So I’ve taken my lead from all these incredibly worthy lawsuits and launched my own.
That’s right, I’m suing big mayonnaise — and not just because I can’t stand mayo. I mean, what is mayo anyway? It is basically just a big swab of fat originally designed to hide the taste of rotten and disgusting French food. Heinz and Hellmann’s watch out! You’ll probably be paying me and other people like me billions of dollars (though it will likely amount to a 25%-off coupon on mustard after we deduct taxes and lawyer fees).
Ever notice there is no label on bottles of mayo saying “if you eat me, you’ll get fat?” You think that’s a coincidence? You think that Mayo producers don’t know you’ll get fat from eating mayo? I think the executives at Heinz and Hellmann’s are conspiring to create a world of fat mayo eaters — and the only people that will be able to compete are the poor in third world countries (who can’t afford mayo) and the vegans (see tofu mayonnaise).
I put on 4 pounds this summer! I used all my intuition (flipped a coin) to come to a complete scientific determination (a pure guess) that mayonnaise was behind my new largeness. Wow, someone call the cops. Those four pounds did irrevocable harm on me — it made it harder for me to pick up girls at the beach this summer which means I am single longer and might traumatize me for life (or at least having to hear my mother’s nagging about not having grandkids that much more).
Makes you wonder what else mayonnaise might be responsible for … hmmmmmm … where there’s smoke, there’s fire … I suggest that a global mayo corporate conspiracy is angling to destroy the rain forests, in cahoots with international bankers to create war in Iraq, and convince us that Gerard Depardieu is a good actor.
Dude, what have you been eating? You know, one of the major causes of food poisoning — and resultant halucination — is eating foods made with mayonaise that have been left out in the Summer sun. Perhaps you ate some bad mayo prior to going off on this crazed tangent? I mean, who doesn’t love egg yolks emulsified in vegetable oil… add some garlic, and presto: aoili; add some basil, and pesto [sic](sick, that pun.) Try it in a peanut butter, bacon, and lettuce sandwich — yum. But, it is interesting that Best Foods mayo is known as Helmann’s on the East Coast… what are they hiding? You could be on to something, just don’t take away my soilant-green.
Wrong lawsuit. Mayo doesn’t actually make you fat, since the Atkins diet proves that high-fat, high-protein foods make you slim. The big target for your lawsuit is all of the LOW-FAT companies that sold high-sugar foods that actually made people gain weight. These folks not only failed to inform you that their foods would make you fat, they affirmatively told you the reverse. Now THAT’s a big $$ lawsuit.
With all due respect — among other objectives, I live for the day mayo
is used by Americans as commonly as ketchup…and offered to us @
diners/fast food restaurants w/o having to ask just as often as the
latter. Not that I’ve noticed you suffer from even one extra
percentage-point of body fat for your presumed age/ht/wt…gaining wt
from the extra fat in mayo aside (nothing regular exersize can’t
alleviate), it has far more nutritional value than ketchup, providing
not only vitamins/minerals, but protein.
As for any history associated with mayo being employed to mask the ill
flavors/odors of mouldering food…lemon has been a much more commonly
used agent for that purpose historically, and who hates lemons? Indeed,
ketchup’s fermented tomato acid + vinegar + high sodium combined are for
more likely to give those of us who are sensitive to food-induced hot
flashes & headaches — akin to what even more people experience from too
much MSG — than the most ripened lemon.
I’ll never forget how DELIGHTED I was to visit Europe for the first time
just after college — after many weeks of avoiding Amercian fast-food I
finally scampered into a McDonald’s in Germany, prepared to settle for
ketchup on my fries just to taste a hamburger (and save some $), only to
find that even there MAYO was the default condiment accompanying the
fries and most poor Americans were forced to ASK for ketchup for a
change! HA! I am not alone — even in the U.S.
I don’t know if you’ve read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, but your
satire is somewhat in the same vein. But, unlike Swift, your suggested
action – tort reform – doesn’t follow from your parody. Try suing for a
completely whimsical reason and you will, in general, lose money.
The United States has a relatively well functioning court system and those
who perpetuate the idea that there are numerous frivolous lawsuits are
living in a dream world, often self-interested. Most of those against
“law-suit nation” only point fingers at greedy plaintiffs and greedy trial
lawyers, not bothering to equally point fingers at greedy corporations and
corrupt government officials. They gloss over the fact that most law suits
are not the class action law suits vilified by tort-reformers, that many of
the tort law suit victories demonstrate company knowledge of a defect or
problem which was then covered up contrary to the public interest, and that
many tort-reformers have huge political contributions from the beneficiaries
of tort reform – corporations. Thus, even those against “law-suit nation”
are engaging in the very fundamental behind it, “money-nation”, engaging in
the oligarchic activities counter to the representative democracy America is
supposed to be.
Our legal system is an adversarial system – individual against individual,
state against individual, company against individual, etc. Handcuffing one
side skews the potential debate in favor of business interests over the
individual or public interests. Examples of this already abound, TRIPS and
GATT and many regulations give primacy to trade over concerns such as health
and the environment. To further exacerbate this but capping tort settlement
amounts weakens government’s role in public interest.
For effective tort reform, there should be a coupling with increased
regulation and possibly caps on legal fees. For instance, I believe in many
European countries, attorneys get fees for time spent and no part of a
settlement beyond fees. Thus, getting a third of a class action settlement
for $50 million would not occur. Also, regulatory agencies in America and
Europe, used to prosecute and/or fine companies on the behalf of the
citizenry. With deregulation, legal actions on behalf of the citizenry is
increasingly rare, leaving torts and the potential for lawsuit as the only
check to businesses or individuals who wish to make money by defrauding the
public.
I agree there should be some tort reform, but it should continue the checks
and balances that keep the public’s interest at heart. To reform torts,
enforce regulations. Sadly, those for tort reform are also often
dismantling regulation, skewing the legal system through judicial nominees
that are ideologically pro-business, and drafting legislation against the
public interest. The last time that happened, companies were selling tape
worms as diet pills (they work well and they even sold well, but alas, since
they often made the dieters very sick, they were deemed illegal through a
well functioning court system).
For instance, in regards to your putting on weight as a fault of mayo,
despite the parody, the country does suffer from an obesity crisis. Not
surprisingly, consumption habits fall along the lines of marketing budgets,
inverting the food pyramid, particularly among the young and the poor. To
exacerbate the cycle of consumption, labeling legislation revised in the
1990s allowed fortified additives to appear in the daily consumption dietary
section. So, strangely, many cereals can meet all your vitamin requirements
without containing any except as fortified foods. Add this to legislative
reluctance to prevent advertising to minors, the push towards soda quotas
for education funding, and a pattern emerges which selects for obesity,
leading of course to increased incidences of heart attacks. Just as with
tobacco legislation, legislators are not trying to promote the public weal,
until litigators force the issue, obviously profiting handsomely themselves
in the process. In a stronger democracy, public officials would legislate
fair advertising laws, balance the pressure against the FDA, and at least
educate the public better. But since that is not happening and does not
look likely to happen in the current legislative environment, trial lawyers
and the threat of law suit is over-reaching to try to right what legislators
should have done. Stuck in money-nation, the only solution left is law-suit
nation. It’s not a good solution, but until those in Congress, the White
House, and the courts exhibit some desire to protect the public, there is no
choice.
In its current iteration which removes some of the check and balances of the
system, submerges the public weal, and laughs at our legal system,
tort-reform is simply democracy deformed.
The commentary regarding Big Mayo and Tort Reform, while amusing, is also fairly easy. Can we all find ridiculous Tort cases? Of course we can. Is there a need to rein in some of these excessive judgments? Undoubtedly.
However, despite the well-advertised Tort “glamour” cases (many of which involve food these days), let it also be noted that Torts are presently one of the most effective tools to require corporations comply with the needs of society (and respectively, individual citizens) beyond profit and loss. The legitimate use of the Tort is being distorted by holding up a few absurd cases, most of which get struck down on appeal.
Guidelines promoting responsible corporate behavior is not generally coming from the legislative, judicial or executive branches of our present government. To the contrary, we are regularly seeing many key laws that are under legislative assault – especially on the environmental front. Can one imagine the egregious corporate behavior that would be unleashed were corporations to operate without the fear of a lawsuit? (I know I am probably baiting the passionate free-marketeer rejoinder of: “they would be able to wholly dedicate themselves to unlocking shareholder value, etc etc”) Can we say the 19th Century?
The corporation is a legal construct that can and has been utilized to create fabulous wealth but can also permit a lot of bad individual behavior to be shielded. To me, it’s no wonder why Tort “Reform” has become one of the favorite rallying cries of the Right, as it is one of the few areas where plaintiffs can make companies hurt where they like it the least – the bottom line – and, coincidentally, plaintiffs’ attorneys are not exactly big contributors to the G.O.P.
I say when the someone files a legitimate suit against a company that has done harm, and that person or class wins on the basis of their arguments, that is a good thing for all of us and the market. Let the conversation continue unimpeded.
HELL NO, I WON’T GO!!! i absolutely love mayonaise, specifically miracle
whip, and would NEVER support a cause like this!! i used to eat miracle
whip and white bread sandwiches as a child. what a ridiculous statement on your behalf.
Nice Work. I never read the Mayonnaise cause of action, but I was on the radio recently when my friend was hosting a sports show. The topic was the suit against the Oreo brand, alleging that they misled eaters and caused them to get fat. As a former yet still active in the bar lawyer, I was asked what I thought about the suit. I wondered aloud how much money a good trial lawyer could make these days bringing similar causes of action against the porn industry. Why the hell not? That’s where the most damage is being done to males and females in our society. And that is certainly a “fatter” target than the CPG and Fast Food industries. If Nabisco (or the maker of Oreo brand) or McDonalds for that matter are at fault for not making clear that their products, when consumed en masse, will fatten you up, shouldn’t the porn industry have to disclose that watching too much porn has a tendency to bring great harm to one’s marriage? One might say, that the injury suffered by a divorce is nothing compared to a life of teasing, ridicule, and humilation, the life of the 400 lb. man/woman, but I say, that the injury suffered by a porn-induced divorce is pretty substantial–incapacity to have a solid relationship in the future, extreme introversion, and a bad case of acne, not too mention for some an E-ticket straight to HELL! I know that there are plenty of guys out there who would be very interested in participating in that class action.
Food doesn’t make you fat. You inability to control your eating and unwillingness to exercise does. I’m so sick of people blaming others. It’s called self control and responsibility.