Ok sazari, then granted for most of that. I certainly don't think what your proposing about reforming the food industry in effect is impossible. Just extreme. I'm also not entirely sold that people are going to behave in a way about something like high caloric food. Especially when the range is so diverse and the market really diversely 'tiered' into lots of small, medium and large distributors. But lets leave that aside of the moment.
Anyway, Yes, I know about class actions. My point was more, what your suggesting requires a large amount of judges to set precedent by massively, massively expanding liability. So:
1) Why do you think they'd agree to do that, and judge shopping doesn't really explain all of that.
2) Given one is there not worry that it sets a precedent with tort law, if your going to throw the individual responsibility thing out with food, what's to stop the baby going with the bathwater and making harm the most abstract and near universally applicable legal concept? I mean what if tires are not suspensions are not made perfectly in a model of cars and they cause bad backs out on country roads, is the entire of the rural U.S then at liberty to sue the car market into extinction? From a legal standpoint, you might actually be pushing the thin end of a massive wedge here.
Or am I wrong in thinking judges can be somewhat conservative when setting massive precedents?