The

Liz McNulty is a mother of four smalls and another one about to arrive.  She is also one of my law partners and a widely respected, very effective products liability litigator.  Liz also helps me spot the legal stories with crossover appeal to my radio show. She has been assisting me in understanding, for example, the vast dislocations brought about by the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act's absurd demands on manufacturers of products intended for use by children which led to the destruction of countless small businesses and hundreds of millions in wasted inventory and sunk costs. Liz advises companies on how to deal with the Consumer Products Safety Commission and its staff and rules, and how to respond to plaintiffs' lawyers threatening or bring actions allegedly related to those rules.  (I have written about CPSIA here and here and National Association of Manufacturer's Shopfloor blog provides constant updates on the law.)

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

Liz is about 9 months along in her pregnancy, but she found enough time on Monday to alert me to a story that is forming.  "Get ready for the deluge of suits against food manufacturers," she told me.  "The FDA is setting them all up for private plaintiffs' actions by the trial lawyers bar." 

I mentioned the story in passing on Tuesday's radio program  --the "Fruit Loops" story, I called it-- and like clockwork it appeared in Wednesday's Washington Post under the heading "FDA seeks better nutrition labeling: Pursuit of standards comes as foodmakers set up own systems."

1
Hugh Hewitt

Hugh Hewitt

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.
Join the Debate
63 Comments So Far
« Previous123Next »
William4518 Wrote: Oct 23, 2009 12:19 PM
Suppose that your wife, with her amazing mind, had lived as you described but had discovered an ingredient in her Snickers bar that in fact made her blood chemistry rise or fall uncontrollably. And suppose she found that the issue affected others.

You would have supported her in a court challenge of the practices of the Snickers manufacturer. Right?

But Hewitt and his partner would have opposed your challenge. That's how at least the partner makes a living.
Serpentdove Wrote: Oct 23, 2009 12:34 AM
I should not have called you an idiot.
Serpentdove Wrote: Oct 23, 2009 12:25 AM
She would rightfully acknowledge the Grace of God in her life for the talents she had and blessed so many with as would I. But, dear sir, she KNEW HOW TO READ. See my prior post.
Serpentdove Wrote: Oct 23, 2009 12:19 AM
My late wife was as sophisticated as they come. Art director for a couple national magazines, 142 IQ, assistant to publisher of national non-profit, read every book about Jefferson in the original English, including the ones on his architecture, directed plays, and on and on I could extole her talents and intelligence. She was overweight, severely diabetic and loved pasta, ice cream and snickers bars. She KNEW the problems. She knew the science. Far better than you ever could even if you studied it the rest of your muddle headed liberal life. But she struggled, painfully. No government in the world would keep her from her snickers bar if she wanted one. (Until the day she was taken to the hospital with the infection that killed...
Serpentdove Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 11:57 PM
It is such a shame that everyone who is poor, uneducated and stupid are those who pig out on junk and that once Big Brother tells them what they are eating they will become instantly educated, self controlled and will then eat greens, protein, whole grains and only healthy stuff. Yeah. Like government intervention is going to make then almost as smart as you obviously are. Common sense is replaced by government intervention. Seems it already replaced yours.
Roy in WV Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 10:55 PM
You say "Proffessor Douglas didn't teach you anything up there?"

You know, I've been inclined to wonder the same thing myself.. But WW isn't quite obnoxious enough YET.. But Maybe------????
Pat2881 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 10:46 PM
I actually do check out the foods I eat and I pay attention to portion sizes. I have done so for most of my life. As for having never been poor, I would never have gone to college were it not for the efforts of a great high school counselor. My father couldn't afford it because he was unemployed and my mother had died two years before. I know what it is to live in poverty.

And no, I am not a suburban mother. My children are grown with children of their own. I am a graduate student working on my doctorate in psychology.

I am very tired of people trying to protect everyone from their own bad choices. The information is out there for those who have enough interest to find it. No one is going to be as interested in...
bibleman KJV Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 8:11 PM
SOUNDS LIKE YOU MAY BE A LITTLE ENVIOUS OF PEOPLE who have made something of themselves.
Proffessor Douglas didn't teach you anything up there?
Sgt Bicep & the Hurt Patrol Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 6:57 PM
Funniest post here - thanks for that.

Humor aside, I wish there was a meaningful way to address obesity. As a physical therapist, it is far too uncommon for me to have a 300 lb-plus patient. Many of these same people wonder why their knees, back, feet, whatever hurt. When it's relevant, I'll steer them towards some dietary counseling if they're receptive. In my practice, I find that most people (fat, thin, or in-between) have no clue or interest in nutritional concepts. It's just not interesting or important to them. Hence, mandated nutritional (which I do not support) labeling is largely going to be ignored.
Basset Hound in TX Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 5:47 PM
Yes, Will you have some valid points. I WAS one of the helicopter moms from Kindergarten through 2nd grade. From 3rd grade to middle school, she walked, and I got lectured about it. Now that she's got her learners permit, she drives to her high school, and I take over to go to work.
William4518 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 4:34 PM
least little bit of logical sense missing from your last post. For instance, you criticize "helicopter moms" who arrive in a car, leave the car at the curb, walk into the crowd to collect their child, then leave.

And you are not a "helicopter mom". Because you are not sitting in your car right behind her car? Because your daughter must walk from the crowd to your car without your hand to hold?

Rant away, sweetie, but don't dump on others as a reason for your ranting.
Basset Hound in TX Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 4:13 PM
When our daughter (now a high school sophomore) was in elementary school, there was a group of total helicopter moms in my neighborhood who wouldn’t let their kids walk anywhere…I mean ANYWHERE, Jim. You should have seen them in the pick-up lane after school. The widdle mommies would get out of their cars (leaving the rest of us who had their kid and wanted to LEAVE to stew behind them) to pick up their little darlings from a VERY public schoolyard (with tons of kids, parents and teachers) and personally escort them to a waiting car. I had numerous run ins with these mommies. Complaints to the school principal drew no response.

Never mind that the VAST majority of child abductions are perpetrated by a non-custodial parent…or...
William4518 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 2:48 PM
quibbles: Hewitt mentions that "he" broke the story on Tuesday; a newspaper picked up his story and "broke" the story on Wednesday. And all of this is in October.

Then he mentions that he learned of the story in early September from another print source.

And Hewitt tells us more than once that the "trial lawyers bar" will benefit from any actions by the FDA. And he has told us that his law firm benefits from the system as it is now. So, "gored ox"?

Generally speaking, which of the parties mentioned here have been appointed to pay attention to health in America?
SG2 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 2:20 PM
I've seen your "I need a comment #1" and"...2" advertisements on multiple threads today. Either take part in the discussion or don't, but don't waste our time with your cut-and-past spam advertising.

Willy of WAWA- Hugh is writing about salient matters which effect all of us. Unlike Jim he's not advocating a service nor giving us his phone number, so this column is not an advertisement.
William4518 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 1:24 PM
advertisement for his law practice and his radio show. The column has nothing to do with medicine. You're posting in the wrong place.
jim#1 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 1:10 PM

William Location: WA
Reply # 1
Date: Oct 22, 2009 - 12:43 PM EST
Jim#1. Take a look at the
content of this thread.

==========

I don't get it, I have looked. My idea is to get the govt out of medicine, except colled the money, and cash the checks.

What are you referring to?
William4518 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 12:43 PM
jim#1 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 12:25 PM

The complete procedure is between you, your Dr, and the specilist he requires, but the gov't is never involved in any decision. Some of the former insurance workers will be hired as auditors to confirm the Dr's in the little local medical groups, are doing what they should, in general,. But the problem is addressed by that med group, not the govt.

This means you trust the Dr, just like we did 80 years ago.

This is page one of 5,000 unreadable pages.

This is just the start, but insurance companies go the way of the buggy whip.

And by the way, no dr needs mal-pratice ins, and no lawyer will ever sue. If the patient is concerned about what might happen, he buys the insurance, just like he does buy...
jim#1 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 12:24 PM

Why doesn't someone ask the important question? Who is the Health Care suppose to serve. Just like Soc Sec, the people. In soc sec the money is collected easily by one procedure, checks are mailed, end of system

For health care, figured the cost of doctor/patient costs for the country one year, find the percentage SS must be increased to cover that portion of the problem. Easy done, no new agency needed, the Soc Sec collection is increased, the procedure is changed only to enforce that all filers of the income tax form, who did nor make SS payments, must pay it with the Tax Form. Again no new agency needed, just an added rule. If you file a tax form, you get a medical card, with tells your co-pay. You don't file, you...
Reggie54 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 12:18 PM
The progression will be from nutritional labeling for foods popular with children to all foods; then the regulation of foods and their content that can be manufactured for sale; then to what foods may be possessed or prepared at home for your own consumption. I can see FDA swat teams raiding refrigerators and whole busses full of handcuffed food violators being hauled off to jail after door to door Halloween candy nutritional sweeps. Oh yes and the FDA will have a complete nutritional forensics lab to test home made cookies, cakes, ice cream, jelly and jam to see if too much sugar was added.
Labels will be put on certain foods with high calorie or fat content indicating they cannot be sold to or consumed by minors. Fines will be...
William4518 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 11:45 AM
listen for the direction of the wind. Ah, yes. Hewitt is a lawyer and McNulty is a lawyer. Each makes a living telling food producers how to avoid complying with FDA regulations.

And Hewitt has a radio program where he tells innocent people that he has stood between them and disaster again every day that he can get a sponsor.

And Hewitt can foretell the future: free choice, gone, within a decade.

Good on ya, Hugh.
doc, aka Rich Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 11:12 AM
The entire subject matter is clearly beyond constitutional authority. Never-the-less congressional legislators consistently push the bounds of constitutional authority granted to the federal goverment ... this is nothing new. In our designed process of checks and balances, the Supreme Court is the one who is supposed to strike down congressional and executive abuse which exceeds authority.

"This one" (unlawful legislature justified in the right of public health) can be traced back to bad court decisions from 1938 United States vs Carolene Products, where a milk producer was shut down. Ironically FDR had a few years earlier replaced enough sitting justices to control a majority on the supreme court, and no law passed by...
Rick2091 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 10:41 AM
This is not about obesity, it's about keeping us safe.

The FDA does the job as best it can.

You're making a mockery of safety.

Maryann, you're a rabble rouser, you incite bad attitude. Do you find this an enjoyable act?
Rick2091 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 10:14 AM
trigger finger.

You wouldn't want to fire prematurely.
maryann62 Wrote: Oct 22, 2009 9:57 AM
It is our job as parents to check out what is best for our kids...aND IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY THINK OF SOMEONE SUING BECAUSE THEIR CHILDREN ARE OBESE, WHY DON'T WE CHARGE THE PARENTS WITH A CRIMINAL ACT IN allowing THEM TO REACH THAT LEVEL?? In our anorexic society anyone wearing more than a size 3 as an adult is considered 'obese'....yes yes, I know that is not what they say, but it is how it plays out. I am tired of government poking their nose in my life and choices....after all if I am obese I will NOT be a charge on the system....i would probably die early...oh so much of this is nonsense...when you can feed a family of 5 for 8.00 on the dollar menu at any fast food place why would you with fewer dollars in your wallet pay 26.00 for a...
« Previous123Next »