The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Recently, The Center for Science in the Public Interest, along with Dr. Arthur Hoyte, a retired physician from Rockville, Md. sued Yum Brand Inc. owner of the KFC restaurant chain. The suit claims their use of hydrongenated oil high in trans fat, causes artery clogging heart disease. The suit seeks the end of tans fat use by switching to non hydrongenated, therefor, healthier frying oil. KFC defends its practice of using the oil by stating,
“All KFC products are safe to eat and meet or exceed all government regulations…”,well that makes me feel better. Having been in the restaurant business I know the use of these unhealthy oils is due to the fact they are cheaper and hold up longer in the frying process. Seems to me this is more a matter of KFC watching the bottom line than providing a healthier product for its consumers.
The plaintiffs in the case are seeking class action status on behalf of anyone eating at KFC in the Washington D.C. area. This begs the question, does the use of unhealthy cheap grease, by KFC, warrant mass tort action and should trial lawyers become food police? Perhaps not. But consider this, if somehow the food KFC served was accidently contaminated with some food borne pathogen, such as E Coli, KFC would be held liable and made to pay for damages to the consumer. Likewise, if some evildoer were to somehow contaminate their food with chemicals or germs that were harmful, they could be held liable for insufficent safety procedures. Doesn’t it stand to reason that if KFC purposely used food products known to be harmful to humans that they should be held responsible and suffer consequences. Food for thought, Indeed!

Comments are closed.

Of Interest