Also on Peter Jennings national news

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2004
Also on Peter Jennings national news
16
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 12:50pm
Boy, you could see that one coming! Next it will be like when the smokers sued tobacco, claiming they didn't *know* it could kill them. Eat unhealthy, use a fad diet like the Atkins diet, and it's in the stars that people get clogged arteries and risk dying young. I don't think followers of Atkins diet should collect a penny for it, personally. There's something to be said for good old fashioned common sense, after all! And as I said, boy could you see that one coming! Rather reminds me of those lawsuits against the fast food industry, McDonald's et al. It's not like a person can expect healthy food from Mickie-D's and yet some sued for McDonald's *making* them fat. It's called personal responsibility, or it should be ;)

Anyway, here's the article, in case anyone missed national news last night and would like to see it. Have a good holiday weekend, all.

Forte

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2596637

Ex-Atkins dieter sues promoters, seeks books ban

Man says eating plan clogged arteries, nearly killed him before heart surgery

By JILL BARTON

Associated Press

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A man has sued the promoters of the Atkins Diet, saying the low-carbohydrates, high-fat meal plan clogged his arteries and nearly killed him.

Jody Gorran, 53, said Thursday that he was seduced "with a bacon-wrapped cheeseburger" to blindly follow the Atkins Diet, which also made his cholesterol soar to a risky level.

"I believe that the diet almost killed me by giving me heart disease," said Gorran. "I feel victimized by Atkins."

Gorran said the suit is not about money, noting he is seeking less than $15,000 in damages. Instead, he wants the court to ban Atkins diet books and products that do not have warning labels about potential health risks.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday with the aid of the Washington-based group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, also names the estate of the diet's late creator, Dr. Robert Atkins.

Atkins Nutritionals said it stands by the science that has "repeatedly reaffirmed the safety and health benefits of the Atkins Nutritional Approach." The company also questioned the motivation of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which promotes a vegan diet banning meat, fish, dairy and egg products.

The Atkins Diet advocates meat, eggs and cheese, frowns on bread, rice and fruit, and allows up to two-thirds of calories to come from fat, double the usual recommendation.

Gorran said he started the diet in 2001 because his weight had risen from 140 to 148 pounds. In two months, he said, his cholesterol rose from a normal 146 to an unhealthy 230, and by October 2003, he needed angioplasty to clear his arteries.

"I came very close to dying, and this is from a diet I thought was marvelous," said Gorran.

Atkins medical director, Dr. Stuart Trager, said the cholesterol increase claimed by Gorran is "dramatically greater than what we have seen" in scientific studies.

Robert Atkins argued that carbohydrates generate too much insulin, which makes people hungrier and encourages them to put on fat. His books, including the best-selling Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, have sold 15 million copies and attracted millions of followers.

The same advocacy group involved in the suit released details of Atkins' autopsy report in February, 10 months after he died after slipping on an icy sidewalk. The report showed Atkins, 72, had a history of heart trouble, including congestive heart failure and high blood pressure.


ON THE INTERNET Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine www.pcrm.org Atkins Nutritionals atkins.com

(edited to add, the above was from Houston Chronicle)





Edited 5/28/2004 12:52 pm ET ET by forte10

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 1:12pm
Looking for yet another Atkins debate are we?

Shawna Guinea Pig 4

  Shawna-- Proud Cl for 100 Pounds or More to Go 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-14-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 1:13pm

Just to set some facts straight - and hopefully stop the malicious spreading of erroneous information.


(as a cl on the Atkin's board I posted the following)


On the way to work today, I heard a story on the radio about a man who is suing the "Atkin's Empire" for making him unhealthy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 1:18pm
Thanks Rymada.

  Shawna-- Proud Cl for 100 Pounds or More to Go 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 1:19pm
There's a debate board on Ivillage that would be more appropriate for a post like this. I'm not getting involved because that's not what this board is about.

~~Linda

~~Linda

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2004
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 1:49pm
Hi Forte,

Yup, I saw it on the news last night too and thought the same thing. I can just see the class action suits racking up! That's where it will likely be headed, and I have no sympathy for it. Eat too much meat, get too much fat, clog the arteries, get heart attack, die young. That's the all too predictable pattern, and it's nothing doctors haven't been warning about for years. Anyway, weekend plans? We're staying home, mostly, out of the traffic mess.

hippolytes

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 2:54pm
I give this the same credence I did the daft hot coffee lawsuit. Just because someone isn't bright enough to follow the directions or read warnings, doesn't mean anyone should give them any money.

I don't think people who don't do atkins, who refuse to be informed regarding it, and who have repeatedly snubbed anyone else's opinion or success on the matter have any right to an opinion on the subject, but that's just me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 2:57pm
Just thought you'd like to know, there are studies to support that people who are pessimistic, unkind, and all around unpleasant die faster than those with agreeable dispositions. I have been succeeding at losing weight, and I find it unfortunate that some people haven't been as successful in their attitude adjustments.

BTW- I know how big a fan you all are of what some dr's say. Some doctors also thought thalidomide was a good idea. Imagine that.

Avatar for jess9802
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-02-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 3:42pm
Oh, no. Please don't bring the hot coffee lawsuit into this. That woman was totally justified in bringing that suit. She suffered terrible injuries that were totally preventable, including third degree burns in her groin area that required skin grafts. The coffee was kept at a temperature about 20 degrees higher than it needed to be kept, and at that higher temperature it was more likely to cause severe burns. McDonald's KNEW that people were suffering injuries and refused to lower the temperature. The woman who finally sued (an elderly woman sitting in the passenger seat) offered to settle her claim for a low amount, and McDonald's refused. She finally sued, won a judgment (which was supposed to be 1 day's worth of McDonald's coffee sales), and the judgment was later reduced.

This Atkins suit is far more ridiculous. The plaintiff knew that he was developing health problems, and despite that, continued. Furthermore, he has teamed up with an activist group that is probably after publicity and not actually protecting people.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 4:00pm
granted, coffee was too hot. I ammend the statement, but not the sentiment.
Avatar for jess9802
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-02-2003
Fri, 05-28-2004 - 4:23pm
Eh, I'm sorry, I just plain disagree. For those who are interested, here's the story behind the McDonald's hot coffee case:

***

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No

one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is

important to understand some points that were not reported in most of

the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was

scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh

and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of

her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in

February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served

in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and

stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her

coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often

charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in

motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed

the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from

the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled

into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next

to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full

thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,

including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin

areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she

underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement

treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds

refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700

claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims

involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This

history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of

this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants

advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to

maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the

safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell

coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is

generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company

actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185

degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn

hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,

and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured

into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn

the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns

would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing

the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin

burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full

thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony

showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent

of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,

if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would

have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or

home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research

showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while

driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its

customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were

unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and

that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a

"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of

the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount

was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at

fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in

punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee

sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the

local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --

or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called

McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never

been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public

case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.

Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.


From http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

***

I agree with you that the Atkins case is unjustifiable. But I think the McDonald's one was. Sorry.

Pages