Sen. McConnell Holds News Conference on Lawsuits Against Food Manufacturers and Restaurants
MCCONNELL:
I'm sorry for the delay.
I had a bill being marked up in appropriations and I thought it would be over by 11 o'clock so I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you all.
Let me first say I think it's important not to blame poor eating habits on someone else. It's not Ben & Jerry's fault if you eat too much ice cream. It's not Sarah Lee's fault if you eat too much cake. It's not Pringles' fault if you eat too many potato chips. It's not Hershey's fault if you like chocolate. And it's certainly not the restaurant's fault if you go back to the buffet three times.
If you aren't going to get some physical exercise and at least exercise some personal responsibility over what you put in your mouth, what you choose to consume, you're likely to have a problem.
The Common Sense Consumption Act, which I introduced this morning, actually does not prevent any traditional lawsuit against a food manufacturer or a restaurant. It simply prohibits bringing any claim based upon alleged injury related to obesity or weight gain in state or federal court against a lawful food manufacturer or seller.
The bill covers all food as defined in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, including food ingredients and beverages.
But I think it's important to underscore it only applies to claims related to obesity and weight gain. All other traditional kinds of lawsuits would still be available against any food manufacturer or seller.
MCCONNELL:
For example: knowing and willful violations of federal or state laws elated to the manufacture or sale of food; a breach of contract or express warranty in connection with purchases of food; and injury resulting from the consumption of adulterated food. So all of those traditional lawsuits would be still available.
This is just the most recent in a long series of tort reform bills that I've introduced in my 18 years in the Senate. I wish I could say we'd gotten more of them passed -- litigation reform is something very difficult to achieve in the Senate. As you know, I was the floor manager on the medical liability bill which we just had up in the Senate a week before last, and we were unable to get passed, cloture on the motion to proceed. So there remains a lot of resistance here in the Senate to legal reform.
I intend to persist. I think that, second only to the relatively sorry state of elementary and secondary education in America, our litigation system is a very, very serious problem that needs to be addressed at the national level because I think it is, indeed, a national problem.
With that, let me throw it open for whatever...yes?
QUESTION:
How would this affect something that gets mislabeled? Let's say, it says 10 percent fat but it turns out it's 30 percent. In other words, the company misled you about how fattening the product is. Would I have a claim after that?
MCCONNELL:
The whole labeling issue is something that, you know, would be developed in public hearings. If you were knowingly and willfully misleading people, my guess is you could still bring a lawsuit for that. What you couldn't do, though, is that because you consumed too much, it's someone else's fault.
This really about personal responsibility -- not about deception -- about personal responsibility.
QUESTION:
If some company would ...(ph) reason to be caught, do you think your bill would still allow ...(OFF-MIKE)?
MCCONNELL:
Yes, that would probably would be a violation of the law, now. Would it not? Yes. So that kind of claim would still lie (ph).
QUESTION:
(OFF-MIKE)
MCCONNELL:
Well, it's dangerous to predict the success of any litigation reform in the United States Senate. But I do think that this new trend in litigation is particularly absurd. It strikes most Americans as absolutely outrageous. And, hopefully we'll be able to address this, nip it in the bud before it gets started.
QUESTION:
What's the reason why it's...(OFF-MIKE)?
MCCONNELL:
We don't have enough votes. I mean, you can speculate about the reason, but we've not been able to convince 60 United States senators, which it usually takes on a matter like this, to advance the ball. And we've had that problem on most kinds of litigation reform. I remember we couldn't get to 60 on product liabilities in the mid-90's. We've been unable to get to 60 on medical malpractice.
The Senate has been very resistant to any kind of legal reform. And I'm being very candid with you about that which is why when you ask me to predict passage I think that would be a bit of stretch.
MCCONNELL:
But I do think this narrow area, you know, might have a chance, because people, I think, across the board believe that this kind of litigation is utterly absurd.
We are not a society of victims. There are many things that occur in our lives that are no one's fault but our own, and certainly the decision to consume is a decision we make ourselves.
QUESTION:
You use the example of over-the-counter medication. You know, most Tylenol, Advil, whatever, says, do not take more than, you know, four pills in an hour.
What would seem to be common sense, they still put warnings. Do you think that, you know, the average person knows what overeating is, or do we need to have warning labels that say, warning, eating more than, you know, two Big Macs in a day may be harmful to your health.
MCCONNELL:
My view is that some things are obvious. Medication, medications are another matter. I mean, that's different. Those are designed to make us, you know, cure diseases or relieve pain.
People, I think, expect to have some directions on that, but the act of consuming food is something that you have to use some common sense in connection with.
QUESTION:
Should restaurants have to be more clear about how many calories are in the foods that is proportional ...
MCCONNELL:
You know, if they choose to do that, I think that's a good idea. I know in grocery stores now it's very common. I think it is a good thing.
A lot of people read the labels, we do have an obesity problem in this country, no question about that, and I know when I go to the store I am much more conscious of reading the labels on things that I purchase, and I see a lot of others doing the same thing.
So all of that is coming about as a result of public education, people are more and more aware. I mean, we understand what the problem is. America, one of the biggest businesses in America is physical fitness, equipment and sports clubs.
The problem is, I hear, that membership in fitness centers goes up dramatically right after we make our New Year's resolutions, and then the actual going to the facilities begins to tail off shortly thereafter.
MCCONNELL:
But this is something that we as a society need to take personal responsibility for and deal with.
QUESTION:
(OFF-MIKE)
MCCONNELL:
What I think is driving it is this -- this is what's driving it. This is an opportunity for personal injury lawyers to make a lot of money.
QUESTION:
(OFF-MIKE)
MCCONNELL:
Well, but somebody advertises on television, "Come see me and I'm going to get you some money because you have some problem in your life that must be somebody else's fault, even though you hadn't thought of it yet," you know, a reasonable number of people who would say, "Why not?"
It's better than buying a lottery ticket, got a better chance of winning. "They may pay me to go away," and that's of course exactly what happens in many instances.
QUESTION:
(OFF-MIKE)
MCCONNELL:
Well, you know what happens though, Nancy (ph)?
These personal injury lawyers are quite resourceful. They keep looking anywhere in America to find some circuit judge somewhere who will buy their point of view, and that's why this ought to be dealt with at the national level much like the need for a national class- action lawsuit bill, which by the way may have a chance here in the Senate. That may be one of those litigation reform measures that's got a shot of actually making it through the Senate.
QUESTION:
Senator Durbin this morning said a member of the White House staff put the 16 words in the State of the Union (inaudible) war.
Why shouldn't somebody at the White House take responsibility (inaudible)
MCCONNELL:
Well, how many people need to take responsibility?
Tenet apparently already has taken responsibility for it. The British, by the way, still stand by their intelligence report. I think we need to stop here and remember why we went to war; it was a lot bigger than this issue.
There were a whole lot of very solid reasons for liberating Iraq, a decision that was supported by most of the Democratic presidential candidates. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but all of the valid reasons that we had for supporting the resolution authorizing the president to take this action back in the fall and supporting him when it was going well still remain the case.
And I think this is just Monday morning quarterbacking, nit picking, trying to find some way to bring down a popular president's poll ratings.
STAFF:
Are there any additional questions on the food bill?
QUESTION:
Any support from Democrats on it?
MCCONNELL:
I just started today.
MCCONNELL:
I haven't made any effort yet to line up co-sponsors.
QUESTION:
(OFF-MIKE)
MCCONNELL:
I just introduced it today, so we're at the beginning of the process.
QUESTION:
Just one more...(OFF-MIKE) in support of the U.S. sponsored war, what kind of democratic...(OFF-MIKE)?
MCCONNELL:
I think he's been great, and I think he's going to get a very, very warm welcome this afternoon in the joint session of Congress. He's a very courageous prime minister who, you know, went against public opinion and I always admire leaders who have the courage to do that. So he's going to get a very warm welcome here.
STAFF:
Thank you.