|
|
|
Lawsuit Alleges KFC Causes Cancer, Customers Shrug
Topics |
2009/10/26 09:37
|
A national doctors group filed suit against KFC last month in San Francisco, alleging that the fast food chain’s new grilled chicken product contains carcinogens and should be required to come with a warning.
“This is an issue of alerting the public to the danger,” said Dan Kinburn, general counsel for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. “We’re not suing for damages. We’re suing for warning labels. We want people to know about this risk.”
An advertisement for KFC's grilled chicken inside the Mission restaurant.
An advertisement for KFC's grilled chicken inside the Mission restaurant.
The group collected 12 samples of chicken from six KFC locations in the Bay Area. Analysis from an independent testing lab found all the samples contained PhIP, a chemical classified as a carcinogen by the federal government and the state of California.
KFC advertises its grilled chicken as a “better-for-you option for health-conscious customers,” according to its web site.
Unaware of the lawsuit, customers streamed into KFC/Taco Bell last week at the corner of Duboce Avenue and Guerrero Street in the Mission District. Behind the counter, employees grilled sizzling chicken and sprayed condiments into burritos from what looked like industrial caulking guns.
“I think anyone that eats here already understands that they are eating such unhealthy food that one more carcinogen is sort of a drop in the bucket,” said 24-year-old Nick Namoto, who comes to the restaurant because it’s quick and cheap.
“Is it fair that you poison people with food? Not really. But people are eating here willingly,” he said, “and people that don’t know that they’re eating poison here are idiots.”
While it might be common knowledge that fast food is far from wholesome, the physicians group said they are targeting KFC because the company has been marketing its grilled chicken products as a healthy alternative to its fried foods.
He said the suit hopes to set a precedent by requiring warning labels that will be applied to other products containing PhIP beyond the poultry empire built by Colonel Sanders.
Numerous studies conducted over decades have shown eating PhIP significantly increases the risk of developing various forms of cancer, Kinburn said.
According to California’s Proposition 65, passed in 1986, businesses must warn customers if they are exposing them to chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects.
While the lawsuit targets KFC, Kinburn said PhIP isn’t limited to chicken prepared by the fast food chain. He said the chemical is produced anytime chicken is cooked above 170 degrees Fahrenheit.
“Whether you do it in a fast food restaurant, in sit-down restaurant, in your own oven or on a barbeque grill, you’re going to get PhIP,” he said. “Actually, all animal flesh cooked hot enough and long enough will create PhIP. That includes shrimp and fish.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawsuit: former officer involved in sex crime
Headline Court News |
2009/10/26 09:34
|
WATERBURY, Conn. - !-- P2P_LIVE_EDIT content_item_dateline_preview END -- !-- P2P_LIVE_EDIT content_item_body_preview START --A lawyer for a 17-year-old boy has fileda lawsuit against the city of a class=taxInlineTagLink href=http://www.courant.com/topic/us/connecticut/new-haven-county/waterbury-PLGEO100100205240000.topic title=Waterbury id=PLGEO100100205240000Waterbury/a, claiming a now-retiredcity police officer handcuffed the teen during an attempted sexualassault in 2006.
The lawsuit was filed earlier this month and seeks unspecifieddamages. It accuses the city of negligent hiring and supervision offormer Officer Stephen Flanigan.
Flanigan could not be reached Monday. His home phone number isnot listed.
The boy told police that Flanigan handcuffed him during anattempted assault by Charles Fullenwiley at Fullenwiley'snow-defunct electronics store in Waterbury. Fullenwiley wassentenced last week to 40 years in prison for assaulting boys hetied up in his shop.
Flanigan has not been arrested, and an internal affairsinvestigation found the allegations unsubstantiated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dolton police officers beat up innocent man, lawsuit claims
Headline Topics |
2009/10/12 10:10
|
A federal lawsuit filed Friday accuses Dolton police officers of beating up an innocent man and lying about it.
The suit also alleges the Village of Dolton and its police department tried to cover up the crime.
David Smith's nose was broken and he had a concussion when he went to Ingalls Hospital after being released by Dolton police.
Smith, 29, was acquitted of disorderly conduct charges after prosecutors admitted an officer changed his story on the eve of trial, the suit says.
Among village and police officials named in the suit is Dolton Inspector General Bob Shaw, a candidate for Cook County assessor who said Friday he was not familiar with Smith's case. The lawsuit says Shaw turned a blind eye to repeated instances of police misconduct.
Smith was arguing with a friend in the parking lot of Shark's restaurant on July 26 when officers slammed him on the hood of a squad car, punched him and threw him to the pavement, the lawsuit says.
Police handcuffed him and beat him, telling his friends to look away as they beat him, the lawsuit says. Someone called 911 to report police beating him, the lawsuit says. Police took a small bag of marijuana from a girl in Smith's group, the lawsuit says.
At the police station, Smith was thrown on a cell floor and lost consciousness, and his requests for medical attention were ignored, according to the lawsuit. Police ultimately charged him with possession of marijuana -- the bag taken from his friend, he said.
I kept asking to be taken to the hospital, my nose was broken, and they didn't do anything, Smith said.
Police said Smith had struck himself on the cell door during processing. But doctors said his injuries could not have been caused by that.
Dolton police reportedly resisted turning over 911 tapes, videotapes of the lockup or police reports until they were ordered to release the items by a judge.
a href=http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1819714,CST-NWS-dolton12.articleRead more.../a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Sugar settles class action
Press Release |
2009/10/05 15:33
|
U.S. Sugar Corp. said Friday it has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought by shareholders and members of its Employee Stock Ownership Plan for an $8.4 million payment to members of the settlement class.
An additional payment of $7.5 million, less plaintiffs' attorneys’ fees, will be made if U.S. Sugar closes its pending land sale with the South Florida Water Management District, according to a news release.
The company said the settlement was filed with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
Upon approval by the court, all actions against all defendants will be dismissed with prejudice, which means that the court ruling is final and the claims cannot be refiled.
This settlement was reached without any party admitting any liability.
All of the defendants in this case have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing, and indeed, most of the claims have already been dismissed by the court, said Robert Coker, U.S. Sugar’s senior vice president of public affairs.
In the settlement, U.S. Sugar said it entered into the settlement solely to avoid the cost, disruption and uncertainty of continued litigation.
a href=http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2009/09/28/daily82.htmlRead more.../a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't review Fla. Pledge of Allegiance law
Topics |
2009/10/05 14:30
|
| pThe Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to review a Florida law that requires public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day unless they have their parents' written permission excusing them./ppThe justices declined Monday an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida on behalf of a high school student removed from his math class because he remained seated during the pledge./ppA federal appeals court upheld most of the law. The ACLU said that ruling, if left undisturbed, would undermine the Supreme Court's 1943 ruling that schoolchildren could not be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge./ppFlorida argued that the law, by giving parents the right to have their children excused, does not violate the First Amendment./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conn. bishop says abuse is in church's past
Headline Topics |
2009/10/05 14:29
|
| pThe Supreme Court refused on Monday to block the release of documents generated by lawsuits against priests in Connecticut for alleged sexual abuse./ppThe justices turned down a request by the Roman Catholic diocese in Bridgeport, Conn./ppSeveral newspapers are seeking the release of more than 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against six priests./ppThe records have been under seal since the diocese settled the cases in 2001. Courts in Connecticut have ruled that the papers should be made public./ppThe decision ends a legal battle that dragged on for years and could shed light on how recently retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the allegations when he was Bridgeport bishop./ppIt's unclear when the documents will be released./ppWaterbury Superior Court clerk Philip Groth said he needs to consult a judge to determine whether a hearing is necessary before the records are released. He said Monday morning it was unlikely the documents would be released Monday./ppThe Bridgeport diocese, which had argued unsuccessfully that the documents were subject to religious privileges under the First Amendment, said it was disappointed in the decision./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Madoff trustee sues Madoff family for almost $200M
Topics |
2009/10/02 15:46
|
| pPresident BaracBernard Madoff's brother, sons and a niece used the family finance business like a piggy bank, a court-appointed trustee charged Friday as he demanded in a lawsuit that they return almost $200 million in money to be distributed to cheated investors./ppThe trustee, Irving Picard, sought $198.7 million from Madoff's brother, Peter, who had worked at Madoff's Manhattan investment company since 1965, and sons, Mark and Andrew./ppAlso sued was Shana D. Madoff, Bernard Madoff's niece and Peter Madoff's daughter./ppLawyers for the Madoff's brother and sons did not immediately return a phone call for comment. A message for comment left at Shana Madoff's East Hampton home was not immediately returned./ppLawyers for Picard said in papers filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan that Madoff's family-run business was operated as if it were the family piggy bank./ppThey said each of the family members withdrew huge sums of money to fund personal business ventures and to pay for expenses ranging from multimillion dollar homes, cars and boats to monthly credit card charges for restaurants, vacations and clothing./ppThe lawyers said $141 million identified as fraudulent proceeds were received by the family members in the six years before Madoff surrendered and revealed his plot last December while at least $58 million was received in the last two years./p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
