The Cost Recovery Act And Tobacco Litigation

1348 Words Aug 12th, 2015 6 Pages
The United States is believed to be a free country, not monocracy. No one wants the government to charge them extra for the snacks they decide to eat. People want to make the choice to be healthy on their own. The choice is up to the individual it is not the governments` choice to make. No matter how much more the taxes the government puts on junk and fatty food, it will not stop people from eating them. 2. In the academic journal, “The Cost Recovery Act and Tobacco Litigation in Canada: A Model for Fast Food Litigation,” the states:
One of the most well-known fast food litigation cases in the United States is Pelman v. McDonald 's Corp. In Pelman, two minors sued the fast food restaurant McDonalds claiming, among other things, that 'McDonalds acted at least negligently in selling food products that are high in cholesterol, fat, salt and sugar when studies show that such foods cause obesity and detrimental health effects. One of the weaknesses of the plaintiffs ' claims in Pelman is common to food litigation in general. The Pelman court elegantly expressed this issue, asking "where the line should be drawn between an individual 's own responsibility to take care of herself, and society 's responsibility to ensure that others shield her?" The court held that "if consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonalds, they cannot blame McDonalds if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized…
Open Document