CSPI

Denny’s has never claimed that it serves only health-food, and nutrition facts about its food are available on its web site.

But that hasn’t stopped the notoriously-unreliable Center for Science in the Public Interest from bringing a frivolous lawsuit against Denny’s over its food, claiming that it is defrauding the public by serving food that has more than a day’s supply of sodium. This lawsuit, known as DeBenedetto v. Denny’s, was filed on July 23 in Middlesex County, New Jersey. Hopefully, the judge will impose sanctions on CSPI’s lawyers for bringing this suit.

At the heart of CSPI’s complaint are its unfounded assumptions that (a) all restaurants imply that their food “has no more sodium than a meal at other restaurants,” and (b) that a typical restaurant’s food has no more salt than a person should consume in a day, such that a restaurant’s food doesn’t “contain more sodium than a person should consume in a day.”

Neither assumption makes any sense. Many common food items in grocery stores have more than a day’s supply of salt. One V-8 has nearly half a day’s supply of salt. Many frozen dinners have more than a day’s supply of salt. Why would anyone expect restaurant fare to be healthier? (Many expensive, snobby, high-brow restaurants serve saltier food than what Denny’s serves inexpensively and quickly to America’s working-class and middle-class people.) There is no limit on who can be sued if this suit were to succeed.

Moreover, expecting all restaurants to have less than or exactly equal to the average restaurant’s salt content is as unrealistic as harboring the Lake Wobegon fantasy that all children are above average. Some cuisines are just saltier than others.

If this assumption were accepted, it would be a one-way ratchet that would force all restaurants to steadily reduce their salt content to constantly remain at or below the average of their competitors in salt content. Food would become as bland as cardboard.

And, yet, these are the delusions harbored in CSPI’s court complaint, which contains the following paragraphs:

“48. Plaintiff and New Jersey Consumers have purchased and consumed Denny’s meals without knowing about the presence of excessive amounts of sodium. Plaintiff and New Jersey Consumers reasonably assume that a meal at Denny’s has no more sodium than a meal at other restaurants. As detailed above, this assumption is reasonable, but incorrect, because Denny’s hides the truth about its high sodium levels.
49. The omission of the information that certain meals at Denny’s contain more sodium than a person should consume in an entire day – and that some people should consume in a few days – is misleading. That conduct violates the rights of the Plaintiff and New Jersey Consumers protected by the CFA.”

How could consumers assume anything of the sort? How could they not taste the salt in the food?

My wife likes Denny’s, especially its club sandwiches, and its reasonable prices. When she first immigrated to America, Denny’s was one of the few restaurants she could ever afford to eat at, given her working-class roots. She was well aware that what she ordered was salty. A little extra salt in restaurant food is not a problem for most people, unless, perhaps, they not only have health problems aggravated by sodium, but also are so lazy that, despite those problems, they nevertheless eat out all the time rather than cooking their own meals, even though they could save money by cooking their own meals, as I did when I was younger and had little money to spend.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is one of the most unreliable sources of nutritional information, having once taught that trans fats were safer than saturated fat.

It has helped to blur the distinction between unhealthy and normal foods over the years, by denigrating normal food items such as baked potatoes, hamburgers, pizza, pork chops, and bacon as unhealthy. Never mind that a baked potato has only 100 calories, gives you 30 percent of your day’s supply of vitamin C (more than a banana), some protein, and many important minerals — and that potatoes are so cheap that even a person of modest means can afford them. The potato saved generations of impoverished Irish, German, and Russian farmers from starvation and diseases related to nutritional deficiencies. (By the way, I lost 10 pounts while working at McDonalds during Summer of 1988, during a 10-week period in which I subsisted largely on the hamburgers I ate for free as an employee).

CSPI’s list last year of eight supposedly awful restaurant foods both blurred the distinction between healthy and unhealthy foods, and shows ignorance of basic math. Along with some disgusting concoctions that were loaded with fat and have few nutrients, its list includes a couple dishes that are fairly healthy, such as the Twice-Baked Lasagna with Meatballs at Romano’s Macaroni Grill.

CSPI faulted the Twice-Baked Lasagna for having twice the fat of most other restaurant lasagnas. But that’s only natural, because it’s a relatively large lasagna — nearly 1360 calories. It also has much more protein than most restaurant lasagnas.

CSPI pointed to no evidence that the Twice-Baked Lasagna has a significantly unhealthier ratio than the typical restaurant lasagna, either in terms of the ratio of fat to protein, or fat to total calories. The Twice-Baked Lasagna has about your daily fat intake, but it also gives you about half your daily calorie needs. It’s a large lasagna, not an unhealthy lasagna. If you were hungry, wouldn’t you rather be served a large lasagna than a small one?

It seems that the food police at the unconscionably named Center for Science in the Public Interest are at it again.  These are the same people who’ve attacked movie theater popcorn and who called fettuccini alfredo “heart attack on a plate.”  Their new pet peeve is salt — or to be more specific, sodium.  Last week, CSPI filed a class action lawsuit against the restaurant chain Denny’s, claiming that, because most Denny’s menu items contain a “high” level of sodium, the chain is engaging in consumer fraud and breaching the implied warranty of merchantability.  The complaint itself, filed July 23 in Superior Court in Middlesex County, New Jersey, can be viewed here.

A full analysis of the case’s legal merits will have to wait for another day.  But, suffice it to say that, by alleging on page 3 of the complaint that “Sodium is the deadliest ingredient in the food supply,” these folks aren’t beyond gross exaggeration.  The gist of the argument seems to be that (1) increasing sodium intake is known to increase blood pressure; and (2) very high blood pressure is known to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke; so (3) Denny’s failure to notify customers of the total amount of sodium in its menu items is putting them at risk.

There’s a bit of sleight of hand here, of course.  Although allegations 1 and 2 are true, there is no clear relationship between the slightly higher blood pressure that results from exceding the recommended daily amount of sodium intake and the very high blood pressure levels that raise the risk of heart attack or stroke.  That’s why scientists have never been able to conclude that high sodium intake itself is associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.  It’s like arguing that mouthwash manufacturers are responsible for thousands of automobile accidents every year because we all know that mouthwash contains alcohol and that drunk driving causes auto accidents.

Unfortunately, lawsuits like these are bad news for companies like Denny’s.  Most people won’t bother to see what the facts are, they’ll just hear that Denny’s is being sued for harming customers and it’ll tarnish the chain’s reputation.  It’s one reason why so many unmeritorious lawsuits get settled — it’s much easier to pay the plaintiffs, change your behavior in small ways, and be done with it.  Still, I hope Denny’s decides to fight this one in court.  It’s about time someone started standing up to these bullies.  And, if Denny’s does go to court, I for one will make an effort to eat at a Denny’s restaurant more often.

Nanny statists are, apparently, equal opportunity hacks. Activists on the left and their legislative team players are not only going after the bottled water “sin industry.” They are also increasing the pressure for regulations on other beverages, seeking to slap a federal 3 cent tax on beverages containing sugar. Where will it end?

Look at this debate between Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health and Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair. Wolff basically calls any American who is over-weight a needless drain on America’s health care system. Should they be punished with a nanny state tax?  He says: “Why not?”

Why not? Because, as Stier points out,  we live in a free society in which individuals should be responsible for themselves. And who seriously believes that 3 cents is going to matter a hill of beans? However, it will aggregate into a good chunk of change to enrich government bureaucrats who will probably do lots more stupid and possibly evil things. Let’s face it. This money won’t fix our health care system which suffers from excessive government regulations and runaway entitlement programs. They will probably use it for more misguided programs.

Before Stier was cut off by the rude talking heads he was up against, he pointed out better solutions for Americans suffering with some excess on their waistlines, one of which included allowing technologies to develop that will help reduce caloric intake. Ironically, nanny statists have fought and undermined these solutions.

For example, for decades they condemned the sugar substitute saccharin by saying it was a carcinogen based on questionable science. After scaring people away from this calorie saver for decades, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finally announced that all the “science” previously touted was wrong. Saccharin isn’t a carcinogen after all.

Moreover, nanny statists with the ironic name Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) fought the release of olestra, a fat substitute that allows people to enjoy a few extra chips without all that many extra calories. A side effect for a small segment of people might be gastrointestinal distress, such as soft stools. But the product would not have this impact on everyone. Ironically, as the American Council on Science and Health notes in one publication, various studies showed that these effects were no higher (about 2.5 percent of consumers in test groups) than they were for chips made with regular oils. Nonetheless, CSPI undermined the marketing of this product and was able to win regulations that limit its use. It is only used for snack foods, but if the Food and Drug Administration allowed it, olestra could be used in a wide-range of valuable applications. Unfortunately, nanny statists would rather find an excuse to tax us.

Source for photo: Katharine Moriarty