The Checkout

KFC's Trans Fats Taking Heat

The food fight continues.

The perpetually hard-charging Center for Science in the Public Interest has launched another legal battle, this time against KFC. Fresh from its recent victory against Frito-Lay (see my item last week on the company's agreement to post more prominent olestra labels on the Light chip products), the nonprofit group today is filing suit against KFC for its continued use of partially hydrogenated oil, a.k.a. trans fat.

In a class-action lawsuit filed in D.C. Superior Court, the group is asking a judge to bar KFC from using trans fat--or at the very least from requiring it to post signs in its restaurants alerting customers that many KFC foods are high in trans fat.

"Grilled, baked, or roasted chicken is a healthy food-and even fried chicken can be trans-fat-free," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But coated in breading and fried in partially hydrogenated oil, this otherwise healthy food becomes something that can quite literally take years off your life. KFC knows this, yet it recklessly puts its customers at risk of a Kentucky Fried Coronary."

CSPI critics were taking aim at the lawsuit even before it was filed. Anticipating the suit, the Center for Consumer Freedom (a group partly funded by the restaurant industry) issued a press release saying the American public would be the losers of any legal action because the CSPI is trying to restrict Americans' food and beverage choices through misinformation, intimidation, regulation and taxation. "This lawsuit isn't surprising. CSPI has spent the better part of five years holding press conferences to threaten legal action over foods including ice cream, french fries, soft drinks, and breakfast cereal. Since consumers aren't abandoning the foods they love, CSPI is using the courts to force its will on all of us."

This afternoon, KFC issued a statement, calling the lawsuit completely frivolous and without merit. "We intend to vigorously defend our position. All KFC products are safe to eat and meet or exceed all government regulations, and we take health and safety issues very seriously. We provide a variety of menu choices and provide nutrition information, including trans fat values, on our website and in our restaurants so consumers can make informed choices before they purchase our products. We have been reviewing alternative oil options, but there are a number of factors to consider including maintaining KFC's unique taste and flavor of Colonel Sanders' Original Recipe, supply availability and transportation, among others."

CSPI says it's not just KFC's chicken that's the problem. Trans fat also can be found in the restaurant's biscuits, potato wedges, potpie and desserts.

CSPI has been a leader in the fight against trans fat, which was once thought to be innocuous but now is considered to be more harmful than saturated fat because it raises one's bad cholesterol (LDL) while lowering the body's good cholesterol (HDL). As a result, food companies must now post the amount of a product's trans fat on its food labels. Restaurants, however, are not required to do so. McDonald's promised to reduce trans fat in cooking oil, but then didn't. Wendy's, however, said last week that it was switching to a non-hydrogenated fat. Now, CSPI is suing KFC to get that chain to do the same. "It's harder to avoid trans fat at KFC than at any other fast-food chain in America," Jacobson said. By frying in such a dangerous oil, KFC is making its unsuspecting consumers' arteries Extra Crispy."

By  |  June 13, 2006; 10:00 AM ET Legal Battles/Settlements
Previous: When Should Product Defects Be Reported? | Next: Consumers' Checkbook: Don't Leave Home Without It


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Does KFC stand for Killer Food Company? -lol

It's not exactly rocket science to fry things in something like trans-fat-free Canola oil, rather than hydrogenated oils.

KFC - Just Do It!

If companies would voluntarily "do the right thing", there would be fewer law suits.

Posted by: John Johnson | June 13, 2006 11:03 AM

I don't see how this group can even compel KFC to change their policies by suit. I imagine that the suit itself is worthless and is really just the front for the free press. Don't want to eat trans fats? Then don't eat at KFC; why do we need a proxy nanny to look out for us?

Posted by: Larry | June 13, 2006 11:17 AM

How come you do not mention how the center for science in the public interest is funded, but you do not mention how the center for consumer freedom is funded. They both have an agenda, yet you seem to give CSPI a pass on the funding issue. Just because they claim to be acting in the "public interest" does not actually mean they are acting in the public interest, rather, like any group, they are promoting their own interests and the interests of their funder, just like the center for consumer freedom.

Posted by: dave | June 13, 2006 11:23 AM

I enjoy KFC or Popeye's or even small restaurant fried chicken - in moderation! The issues I see in this are consumer freedom to do what you will vs. the cost to society as a whole of you doing what you will. Smoking is easy - it smells foul and it is harmful. Those are the reasons that I quit smoking. It sure as heck wasn't to lose weight.

As long as the people who over indulge at KFC are poor and not on my insurance plan, eat KFC and die fat.

However, the question remains whether the rest of us want to foot the bill for some lardass' eating habits via medicaid and medicare.

Posted by: Tom Canick | June 13, 2006 11:31 AM

Why KFC? At least any reasonable person understands that KFC food is not healthy.
Why not a suit against Gerber who uses trasfats in baby foods? That IS outrageous.

Posted by: Elle | June 13, 2006 11:51 AM

Notice and disclosure are good things. At times it's difficult to get good nutritional information. If they're ashamed to say what's in their food, they should change. Others have.

Posted by: I'll start my diet next week | June 13, 2006 12:11 PM

It would be nice if CSPI would take on a real target- the FDA. Food manufacturers are apparently allowed under current regulations to call their products trans-fat-free even when they contain as much as .5g per serving (thanks to rounding).

This isn't protein or fiber, half a gram of trans-fat is rather significant! Unfortunately for the consumer, there's no money to be made in blackmailing the Feds. If CSPI really cared about the public's health, they'd take on this challenge.

Posted by: athea | June 13, 2006 12:18 PM

This is silly who in their right mind thinks that Fried Chicken is heathly? First of all, this is completely unfair to KFC because this suit singles them out, It does not ID Popeyes, Church's, or even your neighborhood grocery store for using trans-fats in their cooking oil. To be fair the suit should force all companies who deep fry food to use something other than trans-fatty oils. It's only because KFC is the big dog they are being targeted. This is the same problem that I have with the movie, "Supersize me" were Mcdonald's is being singled out.
I don't need a lawsuit and another waste of my tax money to regulate something that I already know is bad for me. Nothing positive will happen because of this, people are still going to get fried chicken from KFC regardless of what oil it's fried in, because people who want to eat fried chicken will eat fried chicken.
Keep in mind KFC did have a roasted chicken and a rotissaree chicken before that nobody wanted.

Posted by: Harry | June 13, 2006 12:33 PM

The irony with this is that CPSI was the group leading the push a few years back to use MORE trans-fats. Now they're suing to reduce their use. They should sue themselves, I guess.

Posted by: cleetus8 | June 13, 2006 12:44 PM

Does the government actually think we eat at KFC everyday or that KFC forces us to eat there? Sometimes one just has a craving for such food. Will it taste the same when they change the type of oil? Then will KFC get to sue the Center for the Public Interest group if their changed chicken doesn't taste the same and their business dies? I think it would be better to spend money on getting people who are addicted to such foods help and educate people on what is in foods. The center for public interest sounds more like a big playgound bully who thinks they are better than others and wants to tell other people how to live. Aren't they the folks who sued Nabisco because of the trans fats in Oreos? Please, hands off my oreos! Be rest assured in a few years they will find that the trans fats aren't as bad as once thought. Remember how bad eggs were a few years back.

Posted by: Dlyn | June 13, 2006 1:09 PM

Moderation, moderation, moderation.

Is this really that hard of a concept to grasp?

Posted by: TKL | June 13, 2006 1:11 PM

Aren't these the same jackasses who said we should use margarine instead of butter? And now margarine is bad because of trans-fat? The problem is, we really can't trust the science behind all of this. I love KFC. I don't give a rat's ass if they use trans-fat. If the CPSI does anything to hinder KFC, I will destroy them.

Posted by: Fred | June 13, 2006 1:13 PM

I'm going to sue the CSPI because they told me to switch to margarine a few years back. Because of this, I endangered my health since margarine was loaded with trans-fat. There should be a class action lawsuit and the CSPI should be shut down.

Posted by: Fred | June 13, 2006 1:18 PM

Let the suit go forward. Let CPSI spend the money to get their frivolous lawsuit into court. I hope KFC puts up a fight instead of caving in to this type of blackmail.

Ultimately, this suit would probably be thrown out, then KFC can then countersue for damages.

If you didn't know that deep-fried food was bad for you, then you need to buy a bridge that I have for sale in NYC.

Posted by: Let's sue | June 13, 2006 1:24 PM

I think we should sue the CPSC for bringing this stuff up all the time. Every time I hear about a lawsuit over fatty fast food it makes my mouth water and I think to myself, "mmmm, I have a craving for some yummy deep fried biscuits!"

Posted by: zzt | June 13, 2006 1:33 PM

It took me two clicks to get to the nutrient/calorie counter at KFC ( and a few more to create a custom meal and then get totals for the same nutrients I'd see on a packaged food label. If this information is in the restaurants (some sort of flyer) as they say, KFC seems to be doing fine with giving me the option to find out how bad something is for me.

Posted by: michaelben | June 13, 2006 2:17 PM

Great another company filing another frivilous lawsuit. I have decided to file a suit against CSPI for hurting my ears with their idiotic comments on television about how fast food is bad for us. Hey, we get it, but if your concerned about your health then don't eat fast food. We don't need some idiotic company like CSPI filing ridiculous lawsuits that cause nothing more than log jams in courthouses. CSPI, go hug a tree and drop the ridiculous suit.

Posted by: W | June 13, 2006 2:23 PM

As a vegetarian and a lawyer, I am all in favor of CSPI's action. Anything that results in creating legal fees is OK by me.

As for the public benefit, anyone who doesn't know by now the dangers of trans-fat or that KCF isn't good for you isn't worth saving.

Posted by: DC | June 13, 2006 2:28 PM

If KFC being bad for health wasn't bad enough, another reason not to eat at KFC is the chickens are treated and killed before they end up in the resteraunts.

Chickens killed for KFC are treated in ways that would warrant felony cruelty-to-animals charges were they dogs, cats, or even cows or pigs. Because federal laws exempt chickens from the Animal Welfare and Humane Slaughter acts, sadistic and routine cruelty go unpunished, and it is up to companies like KFC to ensure that the chickens who end up in their buckets and boxes are not grossly abused. KFC has ignored this responsibility almost entirely, and its suppliers continue to abuse chickens--who are remarkable animals with distinct personalities, social orders, systems of communication, and intelligence as advanced as that of many other animals--in ways that would be illegal if dogs and cats were the victims.

KFC's breeding birds have their sensitive beaks seared off with hot blades soon after they are born. "Broilers," or chickens raised for their flesh, are bred and drugged in order to make them gain weight quickly, which often causes their hearts and lungs to fail and their legs to become crippled under their own heavy bodies. Archaic slaughter methods and faulty machinery, combined with an absence of laws to protect chickens, cause millions of them to be scalded alive in feather-removal tanks or have their throats slit while they are still conscious.

You can check out the following website for more information:

Posted by: Melissa | June 13, 2006 2:35 PM

Ok, just start cooking everything in good old fashioned, completely natural LARD! Everything tastes so much better with pure fat.

Posted by: Brent | June 13, 2006 2:46 PM

Well, this is certainly an eyeopener. I'd always thought that fried chicken was a fine, healthy snack to enjoy on the go.

Now, it comes to find out it is loaded with these trans-fats. Whatever shall I do? I certainly couldn't be expected to know this.

Gosh, it is just darn near impossible to figure out what is healthy and not healthy. Here I was thinking I weight 712 pounds because of stress, but it was all KFC's fault for tricking me into thinking that fried chicken was healthy.

God bless CSPI

Posted by: Hmm | June 13, 2006 2:59 PM

"It's harder to avoid trans fat at KFC than at any other fast-food chain in America," Jacobson said.

Come ON!! It's not any harder to avoid than NOT STOPPING AT THE BUILDING. If you think everything on their menu will kill you, then don't go to KFC.

The rest of us actually have brains and make the choice to go to KFC because while we all are aware that it's unhealthy, their food is great. As stated above- most things are OK to consume in moderation, and when I want fried chicken, I'm going to want it tasty and oh, just like KFC happens to make it.

My blood pressure goes up and I am more likely to "literally lose years off my life" from stupid lawsuits and wasted tax money than from unhealthy food that I am smart enough to avoid for every single meal because I am an educated human being and not a blind stupid sheep.

Posted by: Brett | June 13, 2006 3:56 PM


It's chicken. It's oil. Everything kills you; even oxygen.

There's more stuff out there to worry about, let's find something else to create a buzz about.

Posted by: joe | June 13, 2006 4:28 PM

There is more to KFC than just trans-fats. KFC is known for giving food poisoning, sanitation problems, cooking rotten green pieces of chicken, and chicken parts with pus-filled tumors.
Please see:
This is unfit for human consumption.

Posted by: Butterfly | June 13, 2006 4:38 PM

"michaelben" has a good point about the website. It's easy to use, etc.

A problem with the internet site is that you have to have internet access. Now I may be way off base here, but I do not automatically associate KFC eaters with internet access - at least for anything savory (get it?!?).

McDonald's has several ways to find out what's in their food: pamplets, internet, posters, papertray covers, and maybe more. If KFC did even some of that, they'd probably avoid the lawsuit and not suffer any sales loss.

Like I said and others have said, above, show some moderation in your eating habits, get a little exercise, have a few vegetables, and try not to burden the nation's health system.

Posted by: Tom Canick | June 13, 2006 4:47 PM

My 89 year old mother loves KFC and I buy it for her whenever she has a fancy for it. Heck, at this age what harm can a few more fat calories do. I on the other hand choose not to imbide since I recognized long ago what was better for me- fried food or not fried food. I made these choices on my own and did not need the assistance of a law suit to help me. If more citizens in these United States would make better overall nutrition choices there would be a smaller percentage of the population being over weight.

Posted by: chickenlittle | June 13, 2006 5:45 PM

It's great that all the comments on this blog are from healthy, inteligent people who can make decisions for themselves. Now how about all the poor and working class slobs who take their kids to fuel up at KFC, etc. without a second thought. Yes, people have to be protected. The fast food industry is no better than snake oil salesmen. Didn't they used to shoot them in the Old West?

Posted by: oldmonk | June 13, 2006 6:21 PM

I thought this blog was supposed to be a *real* consumer issues. Instead, it's turned into a parroting mouthpiece for the "we know better than you and must protect you from yourselves" groups. Maybe the Post can change its name from "The Checkout" to "The Nanny."

Posted by: joe | June 13, 2006 7:26 PM

"Don't want to eat trans fats? Then don't eat at KFC; why do we need a proxy nanny to look out for us?"

If this is your position, why would you have a problem with informing people of what's in foods SO THAT they CAN MAKE those choices?

How are people supposed to just magically know about the trans fat content of any food? If, as mentioned here, it's possible to have fried foods without trans fat, then it's not obvious that just b/c something is fried means it's full of trans fat.

I feel like I'm always hearing people say, "Well, you should just KNOW X food is bad for you." How can you, unless you're informed?

All these people for 'free choice' seem oddly opposed to giving more information to the people making those choices.

Posted by: More Info, Not Less | June 14, 2006 11:10 AM

It took me two clicks to get to the nutrient/calorie counter at KFC ( and a few more to create a custom meal and then get totals for the same nutrients I'd see on a packaged food label.

Yeah, and I understand they have the information available at their stores, too.

But KFC still refuses to put big black skull-and-crossbones icons beside every item on the KFC display menu that CPSI doesn't like. The bastards.

As oldmonk so wisely put it, "Now how about all the poor and working class slobs who take their kids to fuel up at KFC, etc. without a second thought"? CPSI is doing it for the children!

Posted by: Seamus | June 14, 2006 3:56 PM

Please--when you are eating fried skin with grease seeping through the paper box it came in, you know it's not good for you. Do we really want our government to do everything? When are we going to require people to take some personal responsibility and use some common sense? These types of lawsuits represent what is fundamentally wrong with my generation. Everything is someone else's fault and/or responsibility.

Posted by: ally | June 14, 2006 5:43 PM

KFC Canada's website nutritional info does not display the trans fat info.?? Even more disturbing, a study done by the Globe and Mail and CTV pegs KFC Canada's deep-fried chicken pieces (known as Popcorn Chicken) and fries meals had the highest artery clogging levels of trans fats at 18.6 grams. That's enough cholesterol to kill a chihuahua in about 3 days. Oddly enough, the KFC US website pegs the above meal at 7 grams. So who's facts are we to beleive??

Posted by: John | June 14, 2006 7:08 PM

And as usual, most of the comments are of the smug, judgmental, holier-than-though variety - that completely miss the original point. Which is that just one average sized meal of fried chicken at KFC contains more trans-fat than a person should eat in a WEEK. KFC could EASILY use a healthy oil - but they refuse to. THAT is the issue.

No, nobody is forced to eat there. However, you don't have to think fried chicken is health food in order to be poorly informed. And if it's up to KFC, when it comes to what you're eating in their stores, you'll stay that way.

Personally, I'd like to know if one KFC serving contains more trans-fat than I should eat in a whole week.

To you KFC apologists, happy hard arteries.

Posted by: lily | June 14, 2006 7:48 PM

OK how much transfat is bad for you? How much transfat does KFC contain?

Posted by: Dewayne | June 14, 2006 11:30 PM

This whole issue is ridiculous, we live in america the land of the free! We choose what goes in our bodys, there is enough infromation out there to let us know what is healthy and what isn't. What's next the CPSI will be doing household lawsuits, suing us for what oils we use in our home. This isn't a communism nobody is forcing anyone to eat what they don't want, so why the lawsuit, why are we being forced to waste our tax money on this bull....!

Posted by: mao | June 15, 2006 2:31 AM

"why are we being forced to waste our tax money on this bull...."

I was under the impression CSPI is a grass roots organization, not an arm of the government. It is fully member supported.

Most of the posters on this blog appear to be parroting TV pundits without an original thought of their own. Squawking about personal responsibility won't spare the already distressed health care system for having to treat all these personal responsibility advocates for the illnesses their choices will lead to. One way or another, I have to pay to treat people who eat fast food, take drugs, smoke cigarettes, don't vaccinate their children, etc. Therefore, it is in my economic interest to promote the public health. As a result, I will support an organiszation that advocates increased nutrition education, product labelling, and going after profiteers whose products make people sick.

Even so, you are still free to eat all these foods. And I will still pay for your heart attack.

I would also speculate that people with access to the internet generally have enough spare time to educate themselves and enough access to information to know this food is unhealthy. If you were raised on fast food and work 18 hours a day and still can't afford to pay the rent, it is possible to not know just how bad fast food is.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 15, 2006 11:00 AM

I think part of the issue is delimiting what is a poison vs. what is just bad for you. We don't allow people to use heroin legally; does that make us a nanny state? Only strict libertarians will make the argument for legalizing heroin. So after that, it's only a matter of degrees. Part of being in a society is that certain behaviors are encouraged or discouraged. We see warnings on household clearners every day that say if you use it in a way otherwise than what is indicated, it's a criminal offense. It's these shades of gray where people see fast food fit in. Obesity and lack of being healthy hurts everyone in the form of the families of the obese and insurance rates for caring for them. Those who watch what they eat are benefittng society by being around longer to work and contribute to society and by lowering health care costs for the rest of us. At what point does fast food become so harmful for our bodies that it harms society?

Posted by: . | June 16, 2006 12:38 PM

This clearly falls into the category of Personal Responsibility There's no basis for legislative or judicial action here as long as KFC is complying with the current laws.

Why are we as a society so anxious to find someone else to blame for own lack of personal responsibility? If you eat too much, or too much of the wrong things, you get fat and/or your health suffers. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out the coorelation. Duh, eat less, weigh less - ding-ding-ding!

What's next, Krispy Kreme donuts? Do you really want them to taste like fluffy cardboard to protect those that can't exercise good judgement? I sure don't.

More rants on this particular subject at if you're interested. I don't want to fill up this comment space.

Posted by: NStalker | June 16, 2006 10:49 PM

It is difficult to tell whether the legal action initiated by the CSPI is a classic case of insanity or simply an example of inanity. Rather than rely upon an ignorant "consumer advocate" from the Washington Post or biased advocacy groups such as the CSPI why not look up the facts regarding Trans Fatty Acids?? It's so simple and it pretty much ends this nonsensical debate in the first place.

Posted by: steve | June 20, 2006 11:41 AM

I agree with those who say this is America we have the right to choose - it's all good, but when you choose ignorance, it's all bad.

First off learn the facts about TRANS FAT before you say moderation, moderation, moderation is good - that only applies on natural food. Trans fat is poison - a man made fat created to save the food industries money & because product cooked in hydrogenated oils have longer shelf life.

CSPI should sue every low life food company who still insist of using these dangerous trans fat oils to feed their consumer - We can only have the freedom of choice if all of us are well informed.
Unfortunately not all americans have internet access and those who does, many are still not aware or as evident in this blog DON'T take the time to Google "trans fat".

Facts about trans fat needs more exposure, it needs to reach all media of communication not just online and a 1 minute spot on the 10 o'clock news. The public needs to know & learn that no amount of trans fat is good for you.

If anybody needs to get sued of fired if should be the FDA - trans fat needs to be banned not labelled.

Oh, and for the guy who'll get sued by the CSPI for using trans fat as his cooking oil- never fear my friend no one is going to sue you - unless you decide to feed all your neighbor with that crispy 18grams filled trans fat meals you cooked.

Remember - It only becomes a freedom of choice if you are well informed. If you don't know, then how can you choose???
It should be information, information, information...

Posted by: Miko | June 29, 2006 1:57 PM


I live and work in a Nation that can control me on what I eat. Your telling me that I live in a free (controled) country that tells people what to serve and tells me I have no right to enjoy what I have now, but to eat something that someone else say's to. I thought I had only one pair of parents. Now I have to change because someone else say's too BUllSh**!!! If I eat at KFC Is because I want to eat their i will. There's no one forcing me to eat their. To say KFC was made to change because someone else thought it was better for me. Last time I checked I was entilted freedom of choice in America. But Now they want to take even that away. For example You eat at a resturant because of it's Unique Taste and Flavor. The food is said to be fatting and lead to heartdiease do to what it is cooked in. They Change the oil and bam the Flavor you use to is gone and a oil that is said to be healther make's it unbarable to eat. Now you lost your reason for going to eat their. People lose jobs do to lost sales and they think it's for the people's best interest. All becasue someone else MADE YOUR MIND UP FOR YOU! I thought the Exercising and dieting was to burn off that fat and enjoy what I eat. OR Do I have to eat a Plate of sh** because someone else tells ME to. They think I don't now what is healthy for me. I stay don't make up MY Mind UP and go try to SUE The SUN for Cancer

Posted by: Richard | July 13, 2006 7:31 AM

It's about time! KFC (and others) can easily switch to healthier oils such as non-hydrogenated Coconut Oil that is now known to be great for the body and for the baking and resturant industries. This oil does not get ransid and has a high smoking temperature.
The fallacies about coconut oil being bad for health is now known!!

Posted by: Owen | July 31, 2006 1:05 PM

I'm going to quickly comment on a comment then the article.. near the top a fellow named dave posts
"How come you do not mention how the center for science in the public interest is funded, but you do not mention how the center for consumer freedom is funded. They both have an agenda, yet you seem to give CSPI a pass on the funding issue. Just because they claim to be acting in the "public interest" does not actually mean they are acting in the public interest, rather, like any group, they are promoting their own interests and the interests of their funder, just like the center for consumer freedom."

The reason the CSPI is "given a pass" on the funding issue is due to the fact that the CSPI does not accept corporate or government grants. All money raised by the CSPI reportedly comes from their 900,000 subscribers and individual grants and donations. Rather than serving corporate goals, the CSPI looks to serve the interest s of a broad consumer base.

The suit itself seems to be asking for too much if I understand it correctly. It seems that the CSPI's suit asks for specific types of oil to be forcibly used by fast food chains. At the very least, consumers should be made aware of trans fat presense in their foods, since the substance HAS been proven as a highly dangerous chemical (officially no amount is safe for daily consumption). This is what was demanded of the food industry and is a BIG win for consumers with no imposition on our freedoms.

If the CSPI is indeed sueing to force use of non-hydrogenated oils, there is likely to be more public resistance to what should otherwise be a public victory.

I've seen various folks post comments regarding their perceived loss of freedom with regard to this case. These sentiments are overblown and completely misinformed. Any time we as consumers have an opportunity to learn more about what we're being sold we MUST take that opportunity. We are in no way sacrificing freedom in any sense of the word, and it is certainly not an outrageous demand to make of corporations, since they only survive because we buy. As the constituents of the most powerful organizations (being the corporations) in our country, we must exercise our right to know what is being marketed to us, and what me might potentially consume.

Companies like KFC and Popeye's (though there are many many more) would publish trans fat information if they thought it was economically profitable to do so. People should have this information at hand when decided where to eat. It is on the companies selling the products to publish the levels of dangerous chemicals in their products. If they cannot be forced to assist us in making fully informed decisions, especially regarding our own health, then we really have no control at all over these incredibly powerful businesses.

Posted by: David | August 15, 2006 3:01 PM

whats the point of making a comment when the truth, freedom, and fluidity of my post is edited so i don't upset someone who doesn't know how to tie their own shoelaces?

Posted by: trek | August 31, 2006 7:10 AM

whats the point of making a comment when the truth, freedom, and fluidity of my post is edited so i don't upset someone who doesn't know how to tie their own shoelaces?

Posted by: trek | August 31, 2006 7:52 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company