Posted: November 18, 2013
It would be hard to find any person who does not profit, directly or indirectly, from torts law who does not claim to abhor frivolous lawsuits. As a society, most of us publicly bemoan how these suits drive up the cost of everything from healthcare to fast food by awarding incomprehensibly large sums to supposed victims who suffer what outsiders often consider a relatively minor injury or injustice. Real cases of damage and negligence aside, public perception of trial lawyers skews toward the slimy in most instances.
According to a Forbes.com article, add anti-high fructose corn syrup activists to the list of litigants making unsubstantiated claims based in pseudo-science and precariously linked logic to gain media time as their whines wane in popularity. The piece, which differs from its subject in that it is both articulate and well-substantiated, outlines why the case should be dismissed due to the myriad of legal flaws and pseudo-scientific pseudo-evidence upon which it is based.
The true injustice? Across America, activists have dropped their picket signs and picked up DIY law books searching for an easier way to make headlines to support their dying causes. Finding the actual effort and evidence necessary to generate a true grassroots movement, they have left the street for the courtroom in the hopes their new legal jargon legitimizes their predictable propaganda.
In this case, refuse to be fooled by a carefully crafted sob story. Understand their legal claims lack merit, and their true agenda is to win in the court of public opinion. Remember that, in this case, the preponderance of evidence eviscerates their claim. The ruling is complete. Sugar is sugar whether It comes from corn, cane or beet.
To learn more, click here.