[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 133 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8925-H8933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN FOOD CONSUMPTION ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 494 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 554.
{time} 1036
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 554) to prevent legislative and regulatory functions from being
usurped by civil liability actions brought or continued against food
manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade
associations for claims of injury relating to a person's weight gain,
obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or
obesity, with Mrs. Miller of Michigan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 554, the Personal
Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005.
The food service industry employs some 12 million people, making it
the Nation's largest private sector employer. This vital sector of our
economy has recently come under attack by lawsuits alleging it should
pay monetary damages based upon legal theories holding it liable for
the overconsumption of its products.
H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, would
correct this disturbing trend. Introduced by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Keller), this legislation would generally prohibit frivolous
obesity- or weight gain-related claims against the food industry. It
would, however, allow obesity-related claims to go forward in several
circumstances, including cases in which a State or Federal law was
broken and as a result a person suffered harm. Under H.R. 554, cases
could go forward in which a company violates an expressed contract or
warranty.
Also, because H.R. 554 applies only to claims based on weight gain or
obesity, lawsuits could still proceed if, for example, someone gets
sick from consuming tainted food.
This legislation passed the House of Representatives during the 108th
Congress in the form of H.R. 339 with a large bipartisan vote of 276 to
139.
According to a recent Gallup Poll, ``Nearly nine in 10 Americans
oppose holding the fast-food industry legally responsible for diet-
related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a
regular basis . . . those who
[[Page H8926]]
describe themselves as overweight are no more likely than others to
blame the fast-food industry for obesity-related health problems or to
favor lawsuits against the industry.''
As one judge put it: ``If a person knows or should know that eating
copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may
result in weight gain, it is not the place of the law to protect them
from their own excesses.''
Even the Los Angeles Times has editorialized against such lawsuits,
stating: ``If kids are chowing down to excess on junk food, aren't
their parents responsible for cracking down? And if parents or other
grown-ups overindulge, isn't it their fault, not that of the purveyors
of fast food? . . . Why boost their food bills just because of legal
jousting? People shouldn't get stuffed, but this line of litigation
should.''
The threat posed to our national economy is clear. Personal injury
attorney and obesity lawsuit litigator John Banzhaf said recently,
``You may not like it . . . but we'll find a judge. And then we'll find
a jury'' that will find restaurants liable for their customers'
overeating. According to news reports of a recent legal conference, a
panel of four lawyers argued that the overweight lawsuit movement
``would need to extend beyond the obvious targets like restaurants,
fast-food chains, and food manufacturers to bring about substantial
policy changes . . . ''
Dr. Gerald Musante, a clinical psychologist who trained at Duke
University Medical Center, has worked for more than 30 years with
thousands of obese patients. He is the founder of the Structure House,
a residential weight loss facility in Durham, North Carolina. Dr.
Musante said the following at a hearing in the other body on this
legislation: ``Through working with obese patients, I have learned that
the worst thing one can do is to blame an outside force to get
themselves `off the hook,' to say it's not their fault and that they
are a victim . . . Congress has rightly recognized the danger of
allowing Americans to continue blaming others for the obesity epidemic.
It is imperative that we prevent lawsuits from being filed against any
industry for answering consumer demands.''
Even the chairman of the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition,
Susan Finn, has written that ``if you're obese, you don't need a
lawyer; you need to see your doctor, a nutritionist, and a physical
trainer. Playing the courtroom blame game won't make anyone thinner or
healthier . . . ''
Besides threatening to erode values of personal responsibility, the
lawsuit campaign against the food industry threatens the separation of
powers. Nationally coordinated lawsuits seek to accomplish through
litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic
process. As one mastermind behind the lawsuits against the food
industry has stated, ``If the legislatures won't legislate, then the
trial lawyers will litigate.''
Madam Chairman, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act
will help preserve the separation of powers, support the principle of
personal responsibility, and help protect the largest private sector
employer in the United States. I urge all my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. And as I
said the last time we debated it, I do not rise because I am a
supporter of frivolous lawsuits or lawsuits even that some of the
people have used the legal system to pursue. I rise in opposition to
the bill because I think it is an overreaction; and, indeed, I think it
is perhaps an ultimate attestation to the fact that many of my
colleagues have lost confidence and faith in the legal system on the
one hand or that, regardless of what the legal system does, if it does
not yield for them the result that they are seeking, they are willing
to compromise any principle that they have professed to stand for to
achieve the result that they wish to achieve.
H.R. 554 goes much further than its stated purpose of banning the
small handful of private suits brought against the food industry. It
also bans suits for harm caused by dietary supplements and mislabeling,
which have nothing to do with excess food consumption; and it would
prevent State law enforcement officials from bringing legal claims to
enforce their own consumer protection laws.
Simply look at the provisions of the bill. Section 4(5) would prevent
any legal action related to any ``health condition that is associated
with a person's weight gain or obesity.''
{time} 1045
As a result, the bill would prevent persons who develop heart disease
and diabetes from dietary supplements such as Ephedra and Phen-fen from
being able to obtain redress if they gained weight. Even worse, the
bill bans these lawsuits in a retroactive way. So it would throw out
dozens of Ephedra and Phen-fen cases currently pending before courts.
This is a far cry from the concerns that led to this legislation
originally, some of which I have the same concerns about.
H.R. 554 would also prevent State law enforcement officials from
enforcing their own laws. Under section 4(3), the bill applies to legal
actions brought by any ``person,'' and the term ``person'' is defined
to include any ``governmental entity.'' That means States attorneys
general will be prevented from pursuing actions for deceptive practices
and false advertising and other practices that are illegal against the
food industry.
Again, this is a vast departure from most of the so-called tort
reform bills considered by the Congress, which are drafted to apply to
private lawsuits, and is a vast departure from the original purpose of
this bill and the problems it was designed to deal with.
Since the predecessor to H.R. 554 was first introduced last term, 18
State legislatures have enacted so-called cheeseburger laws to prohibit
certain claims from their courts. While most of those enacted apply
retroactively, others, that is, Kansas, Arizona, Colorado, do not. Some
provide for a stay of discovery; others do not. Some establish
affirmative defenses; others do not. That is our State law taking
effect.
In short, in the considered judgment of each of these 18 State
legislatures, laws have been enacted that best serve their States. The
bill completely preempts those laws and brings to a screeching halt the
work of 26 other States that have been working on pending legislation.
It also disrupts the process in some States that have combined obesity
bills with menu labeling requirements as part of their overall health
enhancing legislative scheme.
What is the price that we are willing to pay to get the result that
we are seeking? Have we lost confidence in our State and Federal court
systems that have systematically thrown out most of the lawsuits that
have been filed against the food industry using this ``fat theory,'' as
it is commonly referred to? Have we lost confidence in our whole
federalist form of government in which tort law has been particularly
the province of the States? Have we lost confidence in our State
legislatures that are in the middle of responding in their particular
States to any problems that may be on the horizon in this area?
We have instead cast ourselves as the imperial Congress because the
same people who came to this Congress, saying that they believe in
States rights, have now shown they do not care about States rights.
What they want is a result that they can control and they can dictate.
That is really what this bill is about, and it is unfortunately not
only this bill. There is another bill right behind this one that will
be up today or tomorrow that does the same thing in the gun context.
So I do not think we are going to hear a lot of people out here
talking about this bill today. I do not see many people on the floor.
It will be like a tree falling in the forest. We do not know whether it
is having any impact out there or not. We will pass it out of here. It
will become a political vehicle to cozy up to the food industry, but at
what price? At what price?
I would just say the people who maintain that H.R. 554 is necessary
to make people responsible for their own choices and to thwart the
unwarranted imposition of legal costs and fees on the food industry are
just not being upfront with us about this one.
This bill insulates an entire industry from liability; and more
importantly,
[[Page H8927]]
it undermines our State judicial and legislative systems that should be
and are in the process of dealing with this to the extent that they
have identified it as a problem.
In that sense, the bill represents yet another arrogant attempt by
this Congress to impose its will on the States, and I urge my
colleagues to get a grip and understand what we are about to do here.
There are some things that are more important, and our judicial system
is working its way through these cases, is dismissing them where they
need to be dismissed; and where that is not happening, our State
legislatures are taking care of this problem. This is not a Federal
issue, nor should it be.
I urge opposition to the bill.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
legislation that will help curtail frivolous lawsuits. It is reassuring
to see the Congress is taking measures to help rid our court system of
lawsuits that are costly and hurt those consumers and businesses in our
country. Twelve million people in this country are employed by
businesses in the food industry, making it the Nation's largest private
sector employer. This is an industry that has a direct impact on the
Nation's economy, and these fast-food obesity lawsuits are opposed by
nearly nine in 10 Americans.
The idea that holding the food industry liable for the excess of some
individuals will combat obesity is unfounded. Individuals, not
restaurants, are responsible for food choices that they make freely in
their own daily lives.
In addition, the food addressed by this legislation is legal and
unadulterated, and the rights of individuals to pursue lawsuits
resulting from claims like the mislabeling of food or food safety
issues is preserved. Our country has a history of providing its
citizens with a safe and affordable food supply. It is unacceptable to
make arguments that certain types of food that are sold in certain
types of restaurants as a result of consumer demand are somehow
dangerous and that the average consumer must bear the burden in higher
food costs because of the overindulgence by some individuals who file
these types of lawsuits.
This bill is not about whether fast food causes obesity. The bill is
about self-responsibility.
Today, the Congress of the United States is saying to a select group
of lawyers that laws are not intended to protect people from these
types of excesses, from essentially eating too much, and the courtrooms
were never meant for that reason. It is really pretty simple. If you
eat too much, you get fat. It is your fault. Do not try to blame
somebody else.
Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Madam Chairman, in addition to the violation of principles of
federalism outlined by my colleague from North Carolina, this piece of
legislation is another piece in which we are taking upon ourselves the
right to try a case in the legislative branch instead of respecting the
separation of powers by allowing cases to be tried in the judicial
branch where they belong.
Instead of respecting separation of powers and honoring the rule of
law and standing behind the principle that laws should be applied
equally to all, we are once again giving special treatment to special
cases.
The majority in Congress has apparently already decided the proper
outcome of these cases and is adjusting the law accordingly just for
these cases, rather than trusting our laws and our courts to hear
evidence from both sides and decide the cases on their merits. If these
are losing cases, then let the judicial process make that decision.
Even if they are frivolous cases, the judicial branch has ways to
sanction people for bringing frivolous cases; but once again, special
interests are receiving, in these cases, special treatment.
Instead of having to go through the courts like everybody else, where
they do not know the outcome of the case until evidence is presented
and the law is applied, these defendants will get to try their cases in
the legislative branch, where popularity and politics prevail. Even
financial contributions are allowed.
Meanwhile, everyone else without special privileges is stuck trying
their cases in the courts, where they have an unbiased judge and jury,
instead of favorable politicians, and they are stuck with the same law
that applies to everybody else.
This is not the only recent example of special treatment. Just a few
months ago, we changed the law for Terri Schiavo because her parents
knew how to reach someone in Congress; and we ignored the multitude of
judicial decisions that had already been decided, and we changed the
law for that case, not cases like that, just for that case.
A few years ago, in a child custody case in the Washington, DC, area
that case was decided by special legislative language in a
transportation appropriations bill. The Committee on Education and the
Workforce likewise considered a case on appeal between the Department
of Labor and a bank and voted to retroactively change the law to fix
the result on behalf of the bank. Later today, as my colleague from
North Carolina has pointed out, the House will probably pass
legislation to fix the result in firearms legislation so that the
firearms industry will get to try their cases and their issues in the
legislative branch, rather than being stuck with the law that applies
to everybody else.
Mr. Chairman, trying cases in the legislative branch is bad policy.
We should honor the rule of law and apply the law in all cases. There
will always be special interests, but we should not make special laws
for those who can get to a Congressman to introduce a bill on their
behalf. Let us honor and respect the rule of law to be applied equally
to all and reject this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
the time.
Unfortunately, the food industry has been targeted by a variety of
unfounded legal claims which allege businesses should pay monetary
damages and be subject to equitable remedies based on novel legal
theories of liability for the overconsumption of its legal products.
Obesity is a problem in America, but it is not evident that the
availability of high-fat food or restaurants are the sole cause. A
number of studies have shown that a lack of physical activity, that is,
not exercising, has contributed to the rise of obesity and not solely
one's caloric intake.
In the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, which I
chaired last Congress, we explored the threat the food industry and its
workers face from frivolous litigation, the threat to personal
responsibility posed by the proliferation of such litigation, and the
need for passage of the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption
Act.
{time} 1100
Since the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) introduced a similar
bill last year, 21 States have passed laws banning these so-called
obesity lawsuits.
The opponents of this bill will claim that this shows that Congress
should not intervene. In reality, it means we must. Without a complete
ban on these frivolous lawsuits, rogue trial lawyers, and I have many
trial lawyers who are friends and who work very hard to get the
appropriate kind of compensation for people who are injured, but many
of these rogue trial lawyers will forum shop until they find a State
and a district that gets them the exorbitant payday that they seek.
I would remind my colleagues that John Banzhaf, an attorney who
testified last year against this bill, stated in 2003, ``Somewhere,
there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we
get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open the
floodgates.''
It is unlikely that lawsuits against food establishments over their
menus will make us healthier. Such lawsuits
[[Page H8928]]
will threaten thousands of jobs and, more importantly, such lawsuits
send the wrong message regarding personal choices and personal
responsibility. Do we want our kids growing up believing it is always
someone else's fault?
Mr. Chairman, it is not only important, but also fundamental that
Americans have access to courts to address their legitimate wrongs and
the harms that they cause. The trial bar serves an invaluable purpose
in helping average Americans gain rightful and proportionate
compensation when harm is done. However, frivolous lawsuits such as the
ones this legislation seeks to prevent serve only to undermine our
legal system and those who truly need its protections and the moral
fiber of Americans who should be self-reliant and responsible for their
choices.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill,
H.R. 554.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 554,
the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, and I thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin for moving this legislation to the floor. This
legislation will help prevent frivolous lawsuits that allege that the
consumption of lawful food products caused injuries resulting from
obesity or weight gain.
The food service industry employs some 11.7 million people, making it
the Nation's largest employer outside of the government. However, this
vital industry has recently come under attack by waves of lawsuits
arguing that it should be liable for the misuse or ``over-consumption''
of its legal food products by others.
It is common sense that individuals should take responsibility for
their own dietary and eating habits. Unfortunately, trial lawyers have
ulterior motives for these lawsuits. They have made their intentions
quite clear, calling the fast food industry the next tobacco. They
estimate potential profits of $40 billion from obesity-related
lawsuits. It is crucial that something be done to guard against these
aggressive attacks.
These ill-conceived lawsuits require businesses to devote hard-earned
dollars to litigate unmerited claims. In order to help ensure that
America continues to be a good place to do business, and to help create
and maintain American jobs, it is important that we not allow
opportunistic trial lawyers to extort money from legitimate companies.
This bill also protects our Nation's farmers and ranchers from the
potentially far-reaching effects of these lawsuits. American
agriculture produces the safest, most affordable and abundant food
supply in the world and should be protected from trial lawyers'
attempts to reach as far up the food chain as possible with unfounded
claims seeking unjust enrichment.
While preventing frivolous claims, this legislation would protect
legitimate lawsuits. It would allow claims to go forward in several
circumstances, including cases in which a State or Federal law was
broken. Other types of food-related lawsuits not dealing with obesity
would also be protected.
The American public understands the importance of this effort.
According to a recent Gallup poll, almost 90 percent of Americans
oppose holding restaurant owners responsible for the diet-related
health problems of regular fast food consumers.
H.R. 554 is a common sense bill that will protect legitimate
businesses from frivolous lawsuits, and I urge my colleagues to support
this important legislation.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this discussion today. The
points I want to make are really more in the spirit of questions. I
come out of a State legislative body where the proponents of a bill
such as the gentleman from Wisconsin would have to undergo a rigorous,
almost cross-examination. We function here differently. But I do have
some questions, and I think I will just present them in my comments and
if somebody wants to comment on them they can.
I heard one of the previous speakers say, well, this is a simple
bill. If you eat something and get fat, you should be responsible for
it. I think that is the attitude of the great majority of Americans,
that you should be responsible for what you eat. But I want to make two
broad points.
First of all, I want to read the definition of food, and it refers to
another section of code. It is very short. This is from section 201(f),
21 U.S.C. 301, section 201(f). ``The term `food' means (1) articles
used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2), chewing gum, and
(3) articles used for components of any such article.''
So we are having a discussion here today about the fact, as the
previous speaker had said, it is simple, you eat, you get fat, you
should be responsible.
The problem is, this bill language makes no reference to only the
caloric containing components of food. It is very deliberately written
I believe to include all food additives, no matter how small amounts,
and the fact that the great majority of food additives have zero
caloric intake and would have no relationship to obesity, I think that
is a flaw in the bill. That leads to the second point.
The bill specifically mentions weight gain and obesity. Well, I think
most of us have a sense of what obesity is. Weight gain is a whole
different issue, and weight gain may occur not from obesity, not from
getting fat, not from putting on too many calories; weight gain can
occur for a variety of medical reasons related to a variety of
different causes.
For example, I mean probably all of us have had a mom or a grandmom
or an uncle to whom we say, hey, I noticed your legs are swelling
again. Fluid retention. Fluid retention. Now, that can be from a
variety of causes. That is not from increased caloric intake. That
could have been, for example, from a food additive, maybe a cause that
was not known to the public of some kind of additive in something that
they had eaten or drank. It may have been something that interfered
with one of their medications and led to fluid retention. I am just
making up hypotheticals here. Or, the hypothetical, perhaps you have
something that is actually a heart poison from some food additive that
has no calories in it, zero calories in it, but over a period of time
does bad things to the ability of your heart to function. The pump does
not work so well, you start having fluid retention. What happens? You
put on weight. As a family doctor, one of the reasons when you go in, I
would weigh people, as you want to see what is going on with their
fluid status. That is weight gain.
Under this bill, which I believe is so broadly written, it would
include those kinds of situations. The word ``calorie'' or ``caloric
intake'' or ``caloric content'' is nowhere in this bill, and I again
refer my colleagues, it is not in the bill itself, you have to go to
the code, the term ``food'' means, articles used for food or drink for
man or other animals, chewing gum, and articles used for components of
any such article.
Anything you drink, anything in it, regardless of caloric intake, is
covered by this bill. Anything that leads to weight gain is covered by
this bill, even if it has nothing to do with caloric intake. I think
that is far abroad. I think this is probably one of the reasons why it
died in the Senate and will die again, but I would encourage people to
look at these kinds of details if there is intent to move this bill
forward.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, opponents of this legislation have said we do not need
this bill. They said, we need a debate on health care, and I am pleased
to engage in that debate. I am reminded of the book that talks about
everything I need to know in life I learned in kindergarten. I have
learned a few things here.
Lawsuits do not lower obesity rates. Lawsuits do not improve the
nutrition habits of children. Lawsuits do not reduce the $127 million
annual medical costs that our Nation incurs on obesity-related
conditions in children and the increase in obesity rates.
[[Page H8929]]
Mr. Chairman, parents need to teach their children at early ages to
eat healthy meals and to establish exercise routines for their
families. School districts need to make sure they have gym classes and
serve the right kinds of food as an option. Proper diet and exercise
will help reduce medical complications that are increasingly common in
children, such as hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, and heart
disease which were once found almost exclusively in adults.
In my years working as a psychologist and oftentimes consulting with
courts, I have yet to find a court that can replace a parent. When will
we learn we cannot litigate compassion, we cannot mandate common sense,
and we certainly cannot legislate personal responsibility.
H.R. 554 will do more than restrict lawsuits against food and
manufacturers for weight-related cases. It forces us to take personal
responsibility for ourselves and our families and put a priority on
establishing healthy lifestyles.
Here are the facts. If you touch a flame, you are going to get
burned. If you eat a lot and do not exercise, you are going to gain
weight. We need to take personal responsibility for that.
The bill before us directly protects individual freedoms of all
Americans from a tiny minority who try to exploit the legal system for
personal gain. I strongly support H.R. 554, and I commend the chairman
for his work.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is where I think we are. Some of us are frustrated by some of
the litigation that has taken place in this area. I said it when we
debated this bill the last time on the floor. I am not a fan of fat
litigation either, but sometimes we have to be patient enough in a
legislative body to let the institutions that are supposed to work,
work. They are working. Most of the lawsuits that have been filed in
this area have been dismissed. Most of them have been dismissed. That
is what the courts are for. We do not always get the result we want,
but the courts are there to make a determination of what results are
appropriate and not under the laws that exist.
The State legislatures are responding. Mr. Chairman, there are 26
pending laws out there in the States. A number of them have different
components, different nuances. Some of them are retroactive, some of
them are not. Whatever happened to our belief that the State
legislatures, the States are a laboratory of good legislation? I
thought that is what my colleagues who are supporting this bill
believed in more heartily than anything else they came to Congress to
talk about. When it is convenient for them, when it is convenient for
them, there is no more important mantra to them than the mantra of
States rights. What are we doing to States rights here, in an area that
throughout history has been the province of the States?
I do not understand. We cannot be so intent on getting a particular
result, so results-oriented that we disregard everything that we have
set up in place to deal with problems of this kind: Our judiciary, our
State legislatures, our common sense.
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.
As a physician, and just as someone who can read the data, I can tell
you that we have an epidemic of obesity in this country. Obesity is a
serious health problem, with very serious consequences.
The most important step we can take to curb obesity is to impart to
everyone in this country that obesity can be controlled when we take
personal responsibility. A healthy and consistent diet, with an
adequate amount of exercise, will work wonders. That's the simple
truth.
We must get away from the notion there is anything remotely
approaching a quick fix to obesity. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle
requires a life-long dedication to one's own well-being. A lawsuit will
not help anyone lose weight. Allowing consumers to sue their local
restaurant, to sue half the food industry, means that we are telling
our citizens, ``It's not your fault that you are obese.''
Mr. Chairman, that's the wrong tack to take. I support this
legislation because it sends the message to everyone in the United
States, young and old, that taking control of your weight is your
responsibility, and taking personal responsibility is the only way that
weight control can be achieved.
I commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, and Chairman
Sensenbrenner, for their work on this legislation, and I urge passage
of the bill.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again using abusive
litigation at the State level as a justification nationalizing tort
law. In this case, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act
(H.R. 554) usurps State jurisdiction over lawsuits related to obesity
against food manufacturers.
Of course, I share the outrage at the obesity lawsuits. The idea that
a fast food restaurant should be held legally liable because some of
its customers over indulged in the restaurant's products, and thus are
suffering from obesity-related health problems, is the latest blow to
the ethos of personal responsibility that is fundamental in a free
society. After all, McDonalds does not force anyone to eat at its
restaurants. Whether to make Big Macs or salads the staple of one's
diet is totally up to the individual. Furthermore, it is common
knowledge that a diet centering on super-sized cheeseburgers, French
fries, and sugar-filled colas is not healthy. Therefore, there is no
rational basis for these suits. Some proponents of lawsuits claim that
the fast food industry is ``preying'' on children. But isn't making
sure that children limit their consumption of fast foods the
responsibility of parents, not trial lawyers? Will trial lawyers next
try to blame the manufacturers of cars that go above 65 miles per hour
for speeding tickets?
Congress bears some responsibility for the decline of personal
responsibility that led to the obesity lawsuits. After all, Congress
created the welfare state that popularized the notion that people
should not bear the costs of their mistakes. Thanks to the welfare
state, too many Americans believe they are entitled to pass the costs
of their mistakes on to a third party--such as the taxpayers or a
corporation with ``deep pockets.''
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufacturers responsible for
their customers' misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing
this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for
Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a Federal
solution. This country's founders recognized the genius of separating
power among Federal, State, and local governments as a means to
maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to
those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation
of powers strictly limits the role of the Federal Government in dealing
with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of
civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the State
legislatures.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using
unconstitutional Federal powers to restrict State lawsuits makes it
more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional Federal
control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one
threat to business remains a Federal government freed of its
Constitutional restraints. After all, the Federal government imposes
numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the
same phony ``pro-consumer'' justifications used by the trial lawyers.
Furthermore, while small business, such as fast-food franchises, can
move to another State to escape flawed State tax, regulatory, or legal
policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive Federal regulations.
Unconstitutional expansions of Federal power, no matter how just the
cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of
lovers of liberty.
In conclusion, while share the concern over the lawsuits against the
food industry that inspired H.R. 554, this bill continues the
disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the
Federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders
of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must
oppose this bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 554,
the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.
You may have heard about the overweight maintenance worker from New
York, who sued McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, and KFC for causing
his two heart attacks and diabetes. Or the class-action lawsuit against
McDonald's where the lawyers named children as the defendants.
These stories may sound funny, but the facts show these types of
frivolous lawsuits bankrupt businesses, deplete pensions, gouge
consumers and deprive Americans with real complaints access to their
day in court.
American consumers actually pay $1,200 more for goods and services
every year because of lawsuit abuse. Studies also found that the cost
of litigation accounts for one-third of the price of an 8-foot aluminum
ladder, it doubles the price of a football helmet, it adds $500 to the
sticker price of a new car, and increases the cost of a pacemaker by
$3,000. We all end up paying a huge price for lawsuit abuse.
[[Page H8930]]
But perhaps the most potentially disastrous effect of frivolous
lawsuits is the cost of American jobs. American businesses are a
consistent target of frivolous claims, which bleed the essential
capital they need to create jobs. And with such a lawsuit happy nation,
many companies simply choose to pack up shop and move overseas.
At what point will we say enough is enough? At what point will we
start supporting personal responsibility and stop supporting personal
injury lawyers?
Options on a menu do not lead to obesity, but unhealthy habits do. At
what point are we going to stop the frivolous lawsuits from personal
injury trial lawyers that are simply trying to make an easy buck off of
overweight Americans?
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to pass H.R. 554. Let's take a
stand for personal responsibility and freedom. Let's stamp out
frivolous lawsuits. Let's preserve the integrity of our judicial
system, and let's stop personal injury trial lawyers from ripping off
American consumers.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern that we
are again dealing with a notion that there is a crisis in our courts
with obesity lawsuits. H.R. 554, the so-called ``Personal
Responsibility in Food Consumption Act'' is a measure that seeks to
give federal immunity to food manufacturers, sellers, and advertisers
for obesity-related claims. The reality is there is only one such
pending suit in the entire country, so I am hard pressed to see why we
need to take up this measure today, especially since there are so many
other important issues we need to address.
I do not think it is the role of the United States Congress to
intervene in every individual and private issue in America. Our Nation
is plagued by childhood obesity and heart disease, and we should be
looking into real solutions to this problem, we should not be focusing
our efforts on getting rid of one lawsuit currently pending against a
fast food outlet.
Furthermore, the language in H.R. 554 is so broad it would cut off
legitimate claims against the food industry, even where the industry
acted to deceive the public and even where it violated State or Federal
law. For instance, those in the food industry who fraudulently or
deceptively market or sell low-fat products that are not really low-fat
should be held accountable but this measure would let them off the
hook. Lawsuits aimed at unscrupulous tactics help to change the
behavior of the bad actors in the industry we should allow our legal
system to process these legitimate cases.
Mr. Chairman, our legal system has multiple procedural safeguards to
ensure that frivolous litigation is thrown out and that meritorious
claims are preserved. That is why I oppose H.R. 554.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Personal
Responsibility in Food Consumption Act because I don't think that any
industry should have the right to conduct its business without the
oversight of the judicial system. What the lawyer-bashers don't want
you to know is that frivolous lawsuits, by definition, get thrown out
of court. In other words, the much-feared million-dollar settlement for
someone who eats 12 Big Macs a day is not going to happen.
That's why there are only a few obesity cases in court right now and
why the only reason we're considering this bill today is because the
well-heeled McDonald's Corporation doesn't want to face a legitimate
lawsuit for false advertising. Many of the pending cases are for false
advertising, claiming food is low fat when it's really not, and this
bill is so broadly worded that it would preclude such cases from going
forward.
The threat of legitimate lawsuits against fast-food corporations is
as much a part of creating social change as is the threat of a
Congressional investigation. I believe that both are equally legitimate
and democratic. We wouldn't want judges to ban us from holding hearings
and nor should we ban them from hearing cases
Even more important than the issue of obesity or Congressional
meddling in the judicial branch is the fundamental right of every
American to have their day in court. Even if you eat 12 Big Macs a day,
you have a right to plead your case before a judge. And the judge has
the right to throw the case out, but Congress has no business
preemptively closing the courthouse doors to a particular group of
Americans.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule, and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 554
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Personal Responsibility in
Food Consumption Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the food and beverage industries are a significant part
of our national economy;
(2) the activities of manufacturers and sellers of foods
and beverages substantially affect interstate and foreign
commerce;
(3) a person's weight gain, obesity, or a health condition
associated with a person's weight gain or obesity is based on
a multitude of factors, including genetic factors and the
lifestyle and physical fitness decisions of individuals, such
that a person's weight gain, obesity, or a health condition
associated with a person's weight gain or obesity cannot be
attributed to the consumption of any specific food or
beverage; and
(4) because fostering a culture of acceptance of personal
responsibility is one of the most important ways to promote a
healthier society, lawsuits seeking to blame individual food
and beverage providers for a person's weight gain, obesity,
or a health condition associated with a person's weight gain
or obesity are not only legally frivolous and economically
damaging, but also harmful to a healthy America.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to allow Congress
and regulatory agencies to determine appropriate laws, rules,
and regulations to address the problems of weight gain,
obesity, and health conditions associated with weight gain or
obesity.
SEC. 3. PRESERVATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.
(a) In General.--A qualified civil liability action may not
be brought in any Federal or State court.
(b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.--A qualified civil
liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment
of this Act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in
which the action was brought or is currently pending.
(c) Discovery.--
(1) Stay.--In any action that is allegedly of the type
described in section 4(5)(B) seeking to impose liability of
any kind based on accumulative acts of consumption of a
qualified product, the obligation of any party or non-party
to make disclosures of any kind under any applicable rule or
order, or to respond to discovery requests of any kind, as
well as all proceedings unrelated to a motion to dismiss,
shall be stayed prior to the time for filing a motion to
dismiss and during the pendency of any such motion, unless
the court finds upon motion of any party that a response to a
particularized discovery request is necessary to preserve
evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.
(2) Responsibility of parties.--During the pendency of any
stay of discovery under paragraph (1), the responsibilities
of the parties with regard to the treatment of all documents,
data compilations (including electronically recorded or
stored data), and tangible objects shall be governed by
applicable Federal or State rules of civil procedure. A party
aggrieved by the failure of an opposing party to comply with
this paragraph shall have the applicable remedies made
available by such applicable rules, provided that no remedy
shall be afforded that conflicts with the terms of paragraph
(1).
(d) Pleadings.--In any action that is allegedly of the type
described in section 4(5)(B) seeking to impose liability of
any kind based on accumulative acts of consumption of a
qualified product, the complaint initiating such action shall
state with particularity--
(1) each element of the cause of action;
(2) the Federal and State statutes or other laws that were
allegedly violated;
(3) the specific facts alleged to constitute the claimed
violation of law; and
(4) the specific facts alleged to have caused the claimed
injury.
(e) Rule of Construction.--No provision of this Act shall
be construed to create a public or private cause of action or
remedy.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Engaged in the business.--The term ``engaged in the
business'' means a person who manufactures, markets,
distributes, advertises, or sells a qualified product in the
person's regular course of trade or business.
(2) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means, with
respect to a qualified product, a person who is lawfully
engaged in the business of manufacturing the product.
(3) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual,
corporation, company, association, firm, partnership,
society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including
any governmental entity.
(4) Qualified product.--The term ``qualified product''
means a food (as defined in section 201(f) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f))).
(5) Qualified civil liability action.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
``qualified civil liability action'' means a civil action
brought by any person against a manufacturer, marketer,
distributor, advertiser, or seller of a qualified product, or
a trade association, for damages, penalties, declaratory
judgment, injunctive or declaratory relief, restitution, or
other relief arising out of, or related to a person's
accumulated acts of consumption of a qualified product and
weight gain, obesity, or a health condition that is
associated with a person's weight gain or obesity,
[[Page H8931]]
including an action brought by a person other than the person
on whose weight gain, obesity, or health condition the action
is based, and any derivative action brought by or on behalf
of any person or any representative, spouse, parent, child,
or other relative of that person.
(B) Exception.--A qualified civil liability action shall
not include--
(i) an action based on allegations of breach of express
contract or express warranty, provided that the grounds for
recovery being alleged in such action are unrelated to a
person's weight gain, obesity, or a health condition
associated with a person's weight gain or obesity;
(ii) an action based on allegations that--
(I) a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product
knowingly violated a Federal or State statute applicable to
the marketing, advertisement, or labeling of the qualified
product with intent for a person to rely on that violation;
(II) such person individually and justifiably relied on
that violation; and
(III) such reliance was the proximate cause of injury
related to that person's weight gain, obesity, or a health
condition associated with that person's weight gain or
obesity; or
(iii) an action brought by the Federal Trade Commission
under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.)
or by the Federal Food and Drug Administration under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
(6) Seller.--The term ``seller'' means, with respect to a
qualified product, a person lawfully engaged in the business
of marketing, distributing, advertising, or selling a
qualified product.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' includes each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United
States, and any political subdivision of any such place.
(8) Trade association.--The term ``trade association''
means any association or business organization (whether or
not incorporated under Federal or State law) that is not
operated for profit, and 2 or more members of which are
manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, or
sellers of a qualified product.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in House Report 109-249. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 109-249.
{time} 1115
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
Page 4, line 8, strike ``(B)''.
Page 5, line 9, strike ``(B)''.
Page 5, line 12, insert ``for each defendant and cause of
action'' before the dash.
Page 5, line 13, insert ``and the specific facts alleged to
satisfy each element of the cause of action'' before the
semicolon.
Page 5, line 15, strike ``were allegedly violated;'' and
insert ``allegedly create the cause of action; and''.
Page 5, line 16, strike ``the specific facts'' and all that
follows through the end of line 19 and insert ``the section
4(5)(B) exception being relied upon and the specific facts
that allegedly satisfy the requirements of that exception.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 494, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes technical changes to the
section of the bill that sets forth the information plaintiffs must
provide in order for a judge to determine whether the lawsuit is banned
by the bill or allowed to go forward under one of the bill's
exceptions.
These minor changes are meant to provide a judge with a clear
understanding of the type of information the judge is to consider in
deciding a motion to dismiss under H.R. 554.
The pleading provision in H.R. 554 is meant to apply to any action
claiming obesity-related damages, and this amendment makes clear that
the pleading requirements will apply to all cases seeking obesity-
related damages.
Also adding the phrase ``for each defendant and cause of action''
clarifies that a judge must apply H.R. 554's pleading requirements to
each specific claim. This prevents a plaintiff from improperly using a
claim that is not barred by H.R. 554 as a means of pursuing obesity-
related claims that are barred by the bill against the same or other
defendants. This change would prevent entire industries from being
ensnared in lawsuits where the relevant facts relate to only one
company.
Finally, other technical changes would simply ensure consistency by
using the same terms in the pleading sections as are used elsewhere in
the bill.
I would ask all of my colleagues to support these common sense,
technical amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, normally when we see a manager's amendment come to the
floor, it is an improving amendment. Unfortunately this one makes a bad
bill actually worse than it was originally drawn, and it does so in
this way. There are already pleading requirements in every State, and
basically what this amendment does is make those pleading requirements
higher for the food industry than for anybody else in America. And, in
essence, where you end up is that lawyers who represent people who are
claiming to have a cause of action are not only now, under this
language, called upon to represent their clients and make a reasonable
effort to determine whether there is a basis for their claim, they have
to be the jury also. They have to go out and decide, are there enough
facts here on each and every cause of action against each and every
defendant to win this case and win it profoundly. They have to allege
specific facts.
I mean, that is the kind of stuff that normally gets done at a trial
if a case even gets that far. Most of these cases are being dismissed
really. So most of them are not going to get that far anyway.
But I am not sure what role discovery or any other aspect of our
legal process is playing anymore if we pass this manager's amendment.
This is much, much more than a technical amendment. This is a very
substantive amendment. And, unfortunately, I think it makes a bill that
is already a very, very bad bill, it makes it a very, very, very bad
bill. I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 109-249.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 6, line 24, insert after ``trade association,'' the
following: ``or a civil action brought by a manufacturer or
seller of a qualified product, or a trade association,
against any person,''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 494, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cannon) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank my distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) both for his
kindliness and his astuteness.
Let me thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentleman from Michigan
[[Page H8932]]
(Mr. Conyers), which gives me a chance to catch my breath.
We were in a Homeland Security hearing which is going on, as many of
my colleagues know, assessing the circumstances with Hurricane Rita and
Hurricane Katrina.
I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is well aware
of great intention in our committee to always work together, and so I
offer this amendment recognizing that my colleagues will consider this
as an opportunity to work together.
One could argue that in the backdrop of Hurricane Wilma now reaching
a Category 5, that this Congress should be addressing many, many other
issues, particularly enhanced funding for homeland security, and, of
course, how we can do things better.
This legislation that is before us needs to be improved. My amendment
would prohibit the food industry, which enjoys broad immunity under
this bill, from initiating lawsuits against any person for damages or
other relief due to injury or potential injury based on a person's
consumption of a qualified product, and weight gain, obesity, or any
health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain or
obesity.
In essence, this is an amendment to protect against consumer
retaliation. My colleagues realize that this particular bill, whether
or not it rises to the level of a national crisis or even needs fixing,
really immunes, if you will, the vast fast food industry.
Now, those of us who have raised children during this timeframe will
never know until the final tests are in, studies are done 10 and 20
years from now, as to whether or not the eating of fast food that many
of us took our young children to for play and excitement, is going to
be long-lasting in its damage.
But yet we believe that this industry now needs a blanket protection
from those who may be negatively impacted, obesity, weight gain or any
other health problems. Yet there is no similar protection against
consumers who may desire to petition these grievances.
It allows the industry to willy-nilly and randomly sue consumers.
This amendment is necessary to ensure that the public debate on the
health and nutritious effects of mass-marketed food and products is not
completely quelched by this bill.
In 1996, Oprah Winfrey was sued under my home State's food
disparagement laws by the beef industry for comments she made following
the first mad cow scare this country witnessed, albeit she was denied
her first amendment rights.
After years of litigation in my State, transfer of her television
show to Texas and expenditure of over $1 million, Ms. Winfrey prevailed
at trial and on appeal. Proponents of this bill assert that the food
industry will incur significant costs defending frivolous lawsuits.
They took Ms. Winfrey to court, the trial lawyers, but neglect the
straggering costs that may be borne by private citizens should they
dare question the health effects of any qualified food product under
this bill. Where are the first amendment rights and consumer rights? My
amendment ensures that what is good for the geese is good for the
gander. Those advancing healthy diets by discouraging the consumption
of certain foods, their right, their constitutional right, even though
I come from a beef State, because of their adverse effects perceived on
a person's health and weight gain, should not be subjected to
litigation from the food industry while it stands immunized from any
accountability under this bill.
Again, I wish we were on the floor talking about restoring the
drastic cuts in the budget reconciliation bill that deal with health
care and deal with housing and deal with the various issues of
education and special grants to help the least of those, but we are on
the floor talking about McDonald's and Burger King, certainly friends
of young parents who, through their professions and other
responsibilities did a lot of eating at Burger King and McDonald's, but
it does not in any way give them the privilege of denying consumer
rights and the rights of consumers not to be retaliated against because
they have expressed their viewpoint and the rights of the first
amendment.
I do not recall any hue and cry in this body during or in the
aftermath against Ms. Winfrey to ban food liability suits. The system
worked. But if we are to end the public's right to a jury trial on
issues of food safety, we cannot end the public's right to freedom of
speech by leaving food critics, who play an important role in educating
the public, as I close, stimulating positive change on good sound
eating habits.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the food industry--which
enjoys broad immunity under this bill--from initiating lawsuits against
any person for damages or other relief due to injury or potential
injury based on a person's consumption of a qualified product and
weight gain, obesity, or any health condition that is associated with a
person's weight gain or obesity.
This amendment is necessary to insure that the public debate on the
health and nutritious effects of mass marketed food products is not
completely squelched by this bill.
In 1996, Oprah Winfrey was sued under my home State's ``food
disparagement'' laws by the beef industry for comments she made
following the first ``Mad cow'' scare this country witnessed. After
years of litigation, transfer of her television show to Texas, and an
expenditure of over one million dollars, Ms. Winfrey prevailed at trial
and on appeal.
Proponents of this bill assert that the food industry will incur
significant cost defending ``frivolous'' lawsuits by the trial lawyers,
but neglect the staggering costs that may be borne by private citizens
should they dare question the health effects of any ``qualified food
product'' under this bill.
My amendment insures that what's good for the geese is good for the
gander. Those advancing healthy diets by discouraging the consumption
of certain foods because of their adverse effects on a person's health
and weight gain should not be subject to litigation from the food
industry while it stands immunized from any accountability under this
bill.
I don't recall any hue and cry in this body during or in the
aftermath of the lawsuit against Ms. Winfrey to ban food libel laws.
The system worked. But if we are to end the public's right to a jury
trial on issues of food safety, we cannot end the public's right to
freedom of speech by leaving food critic who play an important role in
educating the public, stimulating positive change, and promoting sound
eating habits open to lawsuits from an immunized industry.
This amendment addresses this concern and insures that every American
can engage in or has access to an open and honest debate on matters of
public health.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment was defeated last year on the floor by
voice vote. It should be defeated again this year. This amendment would
add to the list of qualified civil liability actions that cannot be
brought under the bill, civil actions brought by a manufacturer or
seller of a qualified product or trade association against any person
for obesity-related claims.
Whatever the rhetorical purpose the sponsor of this amendment seeks
to accomplish, it should be defeated because it is badly drafted, and
in the context of the bill, its application would be nonsensical. The
bill only operates to prohibit lawsuits brought by people because they
ate too much and got fat.
The amendment would add corporations to the list of those who cannot
sue because they got fat. But whatever the intent of the amendment is,
the fundamental problem is that corporations cannot gain weight and
suffer from obesity, which is the term used in the bill. A corporation,
for example, cannot eat too much and a trade association cannot gain
weight over the holidays.
For all of these reasons this amendment should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment but support
the underlying bill, H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food
Consumption Act.
It is an important piece of legislation that continues a series of
tort reform measures considered in Congress this year. We passed this
bill during the 108th Congress, and we should pass it again today. I am
an original cosponsor of H.R. 554, which will prevent a few lawyers
from seeking to destroy another industry that employs millions of
people and provides a welcome service to individuals who choose to use
it.
In general, the bill prohibits weight gain related claims against the
food industry. It allows such claims only
[[Page H8933]]
where a person gained weight as a result of the food industry breaking
a State or Federal law. I remember in 2002, when individuals filed a
lawsuit against McDonald's alleging that the fast food chain had made
them overweight and unhealthy.
I remember thinking that people should take responsibility for their
own eating habits. But it is no longer just one suit against one
company. Now there are suits against all types of the 900,000
restaurants in the food industry from small local eateries to giant
fast food chains.
We must set a limit as to what litigation is allowed. A nonfrivolous
claim should proceed, but a suit dictating the food choices of
Americans should be stopped before it is even filed.
The reality is that restaurant meals will change according to what
people prefer to eat. In recent years we have seen fast food chains add
more healthy choices, like salad and fruit, to their menus, but people
should have the freedom to eat what they want.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, we should encourage personal responsibility and healthy
eating in our society, but we should not encourage lawsuits that blame
others for our own choices and that could bankrupt entire industries.
Because Americans should have the freedom to eat what they want and
because we should take responsibility for our own actions, I support
the passage of the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The gentleman from Utah has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I simply ask the question, in
this bill consumers are left vulnerable, and I would ask the gentleman
would he not work with me in this amendment to ensure that they are not
left vulnerable as we are protecting our fast-food industry?
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. I am not sure when we would work together on the
amendment. I suppose perhaps in conference we could work on the issue,
but I am loath to commit the chairman to that process.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I just want to
acknowledge that the bill does not protect consumers, and I ask Members
to support my amendment.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) assumed the Chair.
____________________