Counterbalance: Let Go of My Oreo!

Commentary by Darryl Wood, ^©2003 Wood Communications, LLC 

I will make it a personal goal to buy at least two packages of Oreo cookies on my next trip to the grocery store this week.  If you have ever enjoyed those little cream filled, crispy cookies, I recommend you do the same.  Why?  Because they're there. 

By now you've likely heard about the lawsuit filed by San Francisco public interest lawyer, Stephen Joseph, against Nabisco, the corporation that makes Oreos.  The lawyer, who claims to be operating in the best interest of children filed the action in Marin County Superior Court, seeking to ban the cookies, claiming the trans fatty acids in the filling and the cookie are dangerous for kids. Joseph further claims that Nabisco targets children in its marketing of the cookies and that's why he filed suit.

Beware of lawyers attempting to sue large corporations with deep financial pockets in the name of protecting our children.  Many times such efforts are the attempts of the attorney(s) or organization in question to a.) Make a name for themselves; b.) Get tons of free publicity in the news media to elevate themselves to the level of a household name; and c.) Get rich quick by bullying wealthy companies or individuals with otherwise pristine public images into paying up in exchange for being left alone.

It seems heavy handed, if not self-serving for a lawyer to tell a company like Nabisco, which manufactures an innocent confection, that legal action is pending against it because its cookies contain harmful, yet lawfully permissible ingredients.  Doesn't it strike you as presumptuous that a so-called public interest group, crusading to "save the children" would legally insert itself between youngsters and millions of adults whose job it is to parent them?  Furthermore, is it in the public's best interest when lawyers congest a backlogged court system with a superfluous case, whose end result may be the curtailing of personal liberty, and increased government regulation?

If Mr. Joseph really cares about saving the children, he should direct parents to credible information where they can be educated about the dangers of trans fat.  The data on trans fats has existed for years and can be obtained through The Food and Drug Administration, the Centers For Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association-all of which have web sites.  Moreover, an army of fitness experts and gurus crisscross the radio and television airwaves daily, preaching about the evils of trans fatty acids.  Apparently, someone's listening because even though many foods contain trans fatty acids, efforts to reduce them have been underway at Nabisco, Kraft Foods and at other manufacturers for some time.  Some companies have already developed trans fat-free alternatives.  That's another reason why suits against McDonald's, Burger King and other purveyors of deep fried edibles are doomed. Or should be.

What, then, does Stephen Joseph hope to gain?  Was he merely floating some sort of judicial trial balloon?  Maybe he obtained a level of notoriety, which makes the media uproar worth his while.  Or is it? We may never know.  However, after only a couple of days in the national spotlight, the PR backlash overwhelmed Joseph's efforts, and decided to withdraw his suit. In a press release dated May 14th, Joseph states, "After three days of incredible national publicity, everyone in America knows about trans fats, and if anybody doesn't, I don't know where on earth they've been hiding. The factual and legal basis for the lawsuit has totally disappeared. I certainly could not tell a court now that nobody knows about trans fat." The fact it, however, somewhere out there millions of Americans are still blissfully, willingly ignorant of Stephen Joseph, his lawsuit, and trans fats. Furthermore, nowhere in this statement does Mr. Joseph acknowledge that Nabisco's alleged media campaign "targeting children" has ended. So, then, how can the factual basis of the suit have truly disappeared? 

Test case or not, Joseph now realizes he underestimated Nabisco's exceptional brand loyalty among snackers, trans fats notwithstanding. Additionally, the sheer mind boggling number of foods with trans fatty acids begs the question, how do you settle on any one manufacturer, let alone a specific product? It seems arbitrary, if not ill-advised to say the least. As Mr. Joseph and his Ban Trans Fat organization must now admit, Oreos was the wrong product to target. Attacking Oreo cookies is like attacking a part of our cherished national character. In the end, consumers capable of separating the hype from the facts, trashed this trumped up court case on the basis of its opportunism, lack of merit, and insidious encroachment on personal liberty. Mr. Joseph, et al., take note.

Bottom line? Parents are accountable for what their children eat. No food maker, government agency, court and certainly no lawyer need come to our collective rescue to save us from the excess to which some indulge, or the ignorance to which many plead, where the nutritional quality or bankruptcy of our junk food diet is concerned. It's not about the children, or some knowledge gap concerning harmful agents in our food. As Mr. Joseph must now concede, it's about preserving our freedom to choose.