Who is Amanda Obney? That’s the big question on the table. Although the name may not ring a bell to most of you, she is in all actuality the California woman who is suing Taco Bell (owned by YUM Brands) for “misleadingly” using the word “beef” to describe the ground beef filling used in their tacos and other products. Here’s what is known about Taco Bell’s new shadowy nemesis: She’s from Orange County, California. She’s a huge fan of frivolous lawsuits. She hates Taco Bell.
Her claims, vis-à-vis her vulture-like attorneys is that Taco Bell’s ground beef only contains 36% beef. The rest of the mixture, per Obney and her pack of legal hyenas, consists of “grain products”, “binders”, and other “extenders” (the former terminology was taken directly from the pages of her lawsuit). Taco Bell
When news of this lawsuit broke, the general tone among many of my PETA/Vegan slanted friends and acquaintances (vis-à-vis their respective Facebook pages) was something to the effect of, “See! I told you it was garbage!” But seriously, for the rest of us, I think the reaction varied from, “So what”, to “Yawn”, to “A law suit? What a waste of time and money”. Leave it to The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart later that evening to uncannily sum up the ridiculous tone of this litigious fiasco by stating, “64% grains; 36% beef? What a relief! That’s not nearly as bad as what we had previously feared Taco Bell was putting in their tacos.” (Paraphrase)
Okay, for those of you that have followed this blog from the beginning, you’ll know that I don’t recommend fast food. Although I eat it periodically, I try to avoid it as much as I can. Good health aside, if you eat a Whopper and a large fries on a daily basis, you’re doing your soul a huge disservice. Your approach to food is no different than Remy’s father in “Ratatouille” when he haphazardly utters, “Food is fuel”. But that said, fundamentally speaking, what you put in your body is entirely your own choice. And unless you have a serious health issue, and are under a doctor’s care, you’re free to eat whatever you want (within reason, of course). I’m the last person to advocate using the court system to sue, or restrain, or litigate anyone away from a food choice that merely poses an individual health risk; or is a health risk that can be controlled and limited through moderation, exercise, and common sense. I don’t agree with anti-tobacco lawsuits, and I certainly don’t agree with anti-food lawsuits. Especially when we know that every adult consumer knows full-well what they’re putting in their body.
Ms. Obney joins the ranks of Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me) and various other zealous crackpots in yet another attack on the nation’s fast food industry. An industry that only exists because people in this country are lazy, and refuse to take the time to grocery shop and cook for themselves. In my mind, if you’re too lazy to open a can of soup, or peal an orange, or open a carton of skim milk you deserve to be morbidly obese and in poor health. This isn’t a case of a prison inmate suing the prison system over meal quality. Obney, like the rest of us, does have copious other food choices. And based upon the fact that she’s not requesting any money in her lawsuit, I’ll confidently conclude that she has deeper ulterior motives. Those motives undoubtedly involve forwarding some kooky, activist, proselytizing philosophy. I'll go out on a limb and say it; she’s probably some variety of militant vegan. Think that’s a capricious, scattershot assumption on my part? Well, you don’t see Mario Batali suing fast food chains, do you? And unlike more level-headed approaches to obesity and nutrition issues (like the one being used by Jamie Oliver of Jamie’s Food Revolution), instead of attempting to change the way people think about food, Ms. Obney et al would just simply choose to abruptly cut off the flow of schlocky food at the source. This in itself, only succeeds in leaving the hapless, food-inept masses with fewer food choices. In my estimation, that’s like denying a welfare lifer their monthly government check, while simultaneously leaving them without the skills or the know-how to find stable, gainful employment. This type of half-baked solution to the problem only makes the afflicted person suffer worse.
Wanting to leverage or eliminate ANY part of our existing commercial food chain, simply because one feels it’s “immoral” is no different than attempting to force children to pray in public schools, or forcing women to wear a burka in public. The universalizing mentality that these militant anti-food-establishment kooks have is really no different from the mindset of those Operation Rescue crazies who block the doors of abortion clinics. What’s next? Picketing in front of Taco Bell with signs that read, “God Hates Fat-Asses!”? If anything, the actions of Obney and her ilk are proof-positive that when a practicing vegan is not also a practicing Buddhist, they can get pretty damn annoying. Instead of this “bombshell” making me recoil away from Taco Bell, if anything, it makes me want to go out and buy a dozen tacos just to exercise my freedom of choice and to further piss off these lunatics in the process. Because when it comes down to it, all that Obney and the people who champion her goofy actions are doing, is stepping on a person’s individual right to make a choice for themselves. When nutrition information is readily available (like it is in the case of ALL major fast food chains), one cannot credibly field the argument that people lack the tools to make an informed decision on what they should be putting in their bodies. Unless of course you’d also like to couple that with the arrogant assertion that , “People are too stupid to make the right choices on their own, so we smarter, more enlightened people need to make choices for them”. If that sentiment sounds like a ludicrous, elitist, and condescending mindset, you’re right, it certainly is.
Does Amanda Obney think she can “scare” the fast food industry into “healthening” up their menu offerings? Sorry to break the news to you, Mandy; but YUM Brands and all of their fast food cousins have deeper pockets than you do. They can drag this out longer than you can. And in the end, all you've done is made a bunch of lawyers richer. And if Yum Brands’ market share does happen to shrink in this country because of this lawsuit (which it won’t) that wouldn’t matter anyway. They’d make up for their sales losses by expanding into a rapidly developing Chinese market. If Ms. Obney dreams of becoming the Eric Brockovich of the fast food industry, she’s nothing short of a certifiable nut-case.
So thanks, Amanda Obney (whoever the heck you are) for helping to invigorate our ailing economy by keeping dozens of bottom-feeding, notoriety-hungry attorneys employed. Thanks for working to erode our freedom of choice by wastefully using the courts as your proselytizing sledge hammer. And thanks for being soooooo much smarter than the rest of us poor slobs. I suppose expecting you to take up a crusade that holds true usefulness and intrinsic value to society was just a little too much for us to ask of you this time around.
Chew on THAT!
T.S.G.
No comments:
Post a Comment