| More
Home / Food Police / Headlines


June 19, 2006
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


CSPI Lawsuit Thrown Out By The Court Of Public Opinion

It's been less than a week since the food police at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a class-action lawsuit against KFC for using cooking oils once defended by CSPI itself. Shockingly, despite the fact that CSPI has "Public Interest" right in its name, not every member of the public is convinced the lawsuit is actually in his interest. At the lawsuit's core, the editors of the Spartanburg Herald-Journal wrote this morning, is an ideology deeply opposed to consumer choice:
The lawsuit doesn't claim that Kentucky Fried Chicken is using an illegal process to cook its food. It doesn't allege that the restaurant chain violates the health codes of the states in which it operates. And it doesn't claim that the company is misleading people about the oil it uses or the fat content of its food ... In other words, [CSPI] doesn't like the choices Kentucky Fried Chicken has made in its menu. It doesn't like the choices made by people who eat at the restaurant. And it wants the government to put a stop to it.

What the lawsuit doesn't acknowledge is CSPI's role in defending trans fats. In a Friday editorial, The Washington Times drew the only natural conclusion: "Today, no one denies that Americans are consuming far too much trans fat. But if anybody should be sued for this reason, it is the scolds at CSPI who forced the fast-food chains to start using partially hydrogenated oils."

A few more public voices had some harsh words for the lawsuit's plaintiff, Arthur Hoyte. A writer for the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal cracked on Saturday: "Apparently, Hoyte never realized that KFC stood for Kentucky FRIED Chicken. Not Baked, Grilled, Boiled, Broiled, Steamed or Barbecued." Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman observed that while the company held up its end, Hoyte did not do the same:

For customers who care, KFC gives ample information on its Web site and in brochures available in its restaurants. The man CSPI is representing in this lawsuit says he knew trans fat is unhealthy but had no idea KFC uses it. If he didn't care enough to ask, why should the courts care enough to intervene?

email us comments




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

Daily Headlines

  • Taxing “Junk Food” Is Trashy Policy
    Posted On: Tuesday 3/16/2010
  • Hype Masters Call Out Corn Syrup Falsehoods
    Posted On: Thursday 3/11/2010
  • Food Cops Prepare for Round 2
    Posted On: Wednesday 3/3/2010
  • A Stimulus for Food Cops' Appetites
    Posted On: Wednesday 2/17/2010
  • The White House: Food Police Headquarters?
    Posted On: Friday 2/12/2010
  • Personal Responsibility Still Ahead?
    Posted On: Thursday 2/11/2010
  • CSPI: Kings of Gripe
    Posted On: Tuesday 2/9/2010


  • Activist Cash

    Kelly Brownell
    Background
    Kelly Brownell is a Yale psychologist on a decade-long crusade against what he calls America’s “toxic food environment.” He is best known for having first proposed the infamous “Twinkie tax.” read more here »

    Marion Nestle
    Background
    Marion Nestle is one of the country’s most hysterical anti-food-industry fanatics. She writes: “Sellers of food products do not attract the same kind of attention as purveyors of drugs or tobacco. They should.” read more here »

    OpEds

    ‘Tis not the season to be annoyingly wary
    This time of year, people watching their weight while facing down holiday happy hours and open houses can be particularly susceptible to scaremongering by the fat police. read more here »

    High-sodium food fight
    It doesn't take a Ph.D. in nutrition to know that a pile of pancakes, sausage, bacon and eggs is not a healthy breakfast. Except, apparently, when it comes to the nutritionists at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. read more here »


    Copyright © 1997-2010 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.