<Providing information about trans fat on labels could prevent 7,600 to 17,100 cases of coronary heart disease and 2,500 to 5,600 deaths every year -- not only because people would be able to choose healthier foods but because manufacturers could choose to reduce trans fat amounts rather than list high levels on nutrition panels, the FDA has estimated.
[and]
Legally, Joseph is relying on a provision in California law that says companies aren't liable for a commonly used but unhealthy product if it is well-known in the community that the product is unsafe.
-- from the linked article in the SF Chronicle

I'm making no speculation one way or the other on the "friviloty" of Joseph's lawsuit or on its fate in the courts... but let's get hypothetical for a minute and consider the plausibility of an underlying motive for this tactic.

Contemporary popular culture loves sensational stories of all kinds, from murders to sex scandals to hypocrisy - and there's a special place reserved for public craziness. The 'hot coffee' lawsuit became legend almost as soon as news of it first appeared; even people who, if pressed, would guess that prima facie is a brand of makeup and tort is a dessert, agree with one voice on the utter ridiculousness of that case - that's why everybody knows about it. I've personally heard the "Fat Kids v. McDonald's" case talked about in the same way by a lot of the same sort of folks.

So, here's Stephen Joseph, arguably with a personal axe to grind vis a vis his father, but equally arguably with a real public health issue substantiated by the FDA and the NAS. Is he claiming some vast conspiracy to make people addicted to junk food, as in the case we discussed here last week? No... but he does have a law on the books in his state that indemnifies manufacturers from liability if what they make is known to be dangerous.

So, my hypothesis: Joseph picks a target intended to incite public ridicule of his case: Oreos. For as long as it lasts, he can use it as a soapbox to assist the FDA in making people think about trans fat, and he's guaranteed that, even if his suit is dismissed, people will be talking about it for years. If it goes to trial, Nabisco's first instinct may very well be to settle out of court without admission of wrongdoing, by promising to comply with that California law and labelling their products' trans fat content - precisely what the FDA wants...

...so that adults have information they can use to make choices - that, after all, is "some way of placing at least some responsibility for their own lives on the consumers."