The Los Angeles Times took aim at the “food police” this week, specifically at the deceptively-named Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s lawsuit against hot dog makers and the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s lawsuit against the restaurant chain Denny’s.
Here’s what the editorial board had to say about these “fringe food lawsuits”:
A New Jersey lawsuit demanding cigarette-pack-type warnings on hot dogs is mainly a crank case by a veganism advocacy group, the sort of legal action that makes for headlines rather than meaningful consumer protection. That suit — and another one filed just a day later in New Jersey demanding that Denny’s restaurant menus include the sodium content of all its dishes (as well as a warning label about the dangers of salt) — represents the kind of where-does-it-end silliness that makes even reasonable food-labeling laws seem out to lunch. …
The salt lawsuit was filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest on behalf of a 48-year-old man with high blood pressure who says he was "astonished" to learn of the sodium content in many Denny’s dishes. But a man who takes medication for blood pressure should be educating himself about salt content; there should be nothing astonishing about the sodium levels in a pileup of ham, eggs and cheese that reportedly was his regular order at Denny’s.
Denny’s and many other chains offer charts with the full nutrition information on all their dishes, including sodium content, both online and on request at their restaurants. In a world filled with potentially unhealthy options, people with specific dietary needs should be doing a little research before calling the waitress over.
We couldn’t agree more, and said the same thing in an op-ed that appeared today in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Click here to read our take.
