The General Assembly has a lot on its plate this session with respect to obesity.
Immunity does not apply if the claim alleges adulteration or misbranding of food or beverage if the adulteration or misbranding relates to a labeling or purity requirement under state or federal law.
Personally, I would have also made an exception to the immunity if the defendant knowingly or intentionally made misrepresentations concerning the health effects of the food or beverage. If everybody knows the food is junk and the manufacturer or restaurant is either saying that it’s junk or saying nothing at all, then I can pretty much agree that you make your own decisions and ought to live with them. But if the manufacturer or restaurant is touting the food or beverage as healthy, then there ought to be consequences if it is not.
Also, I think I would have been inclined to condition immunity for foods or beverages that have been “spiked” with extra salt or sugar or the like to make them more habit forming. I would have conditioned the immunity on the manufacturer or seller labeling the product as having the extra ingredient added with a warning that the ingredient may make the product more habit forming.
Holding consumers responsible for their consumption is entirely appropriate, but only if they are being given accurate information and, probably more importantly, the immune party is not permitted to put out disinformation. Otherwise, I figure you let a jury sort it out.
[…] The article concerns SB 111-2006 which, among other things, required schools to develop local wellness policies and imposed requirements attempting to improve the healthiness of food made available to students during school hours. (For prior discussion of SB 111-2006, see here and here.) […]