Don't you just hate it when one of the companies in your portfolio finds itself the subject of litigation? Especially when it's a lawsuit not so much for money but to generate a little bad publicity? I know, lawsuits are part of the game of any business. They are nothing more than another cost on the income statement. But I hate it when it has to do with an acquisition that is still young. I'm talking about Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) and a lawsuit brought against its VitaminWater asset.

According to this source, The Center for Science in the Public Interest doesn't like the way that Coke publicizes the health benefits of VitaminWater and is suing to make its point.

Words on the label of the bottles of the product irk the group, words like "defense" and "rescue." For those who have never ingested one of these drinks, these are the names of the drinks and are supposed to help consumers know which beverage to use in case you are feeling sick, or are feeling fatigued, etc.

The good folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest are at it again. In the mid-90s I wrote about this group for Business Week, when it made the claim that Chinese food was bad for you. Shocking!

In the crosshairs this time? Burger King. The public advocacy group is suing Burger King (Burger King Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BKC)) because it's bad for you.

Not quite the same shock effect as the Chinese food report had. Fast food bad for you? Stop the presses!

But what better way to get your point across than with a shocker of a lawsuit? According to the group, the home of the Whopper is increasing its patrons' risk of heart disease and early death by knowingly using trans fat in its cooking. The CSPI is asking a District of Columbia Superior Court judge to order the chain to stop using the ingredient, or at least put a suitable warning on its packaging. Hey, skulls and crossbones are in fashion these days. Might work. Anything has to be better than that creepy "King" the company is using these days.

The larger point: Burger King is the last of the large fast food chains to address the very real issue of trans fat. In February the chain announced that it had been testing alternative oils, and that it hoped it would be able to roll something out in late 2008. This came two days after McDonald's Corp. (NYSE: MCD) announced it would stop using trans fat.

Given the well-documented perils of trans fat, it's hard to be critical of whatever methods are used to ban the cancer-causing substance. I'm not ragging on CSPI. The group does good work, and it's been an early and vociferous agitator in bringing childhood obesity into the light of day. But sometimes I wonder if the group isn't a little Quixotic. Suing a fast food chain because the food is bad for you takes a particular kind of chutzpah.

Frappucinos have more fat than and a big mac, okay?

Last week, Reuters reported that, the Center for Science in the Public Interest -- having just launching a suit against KFC for frying chicken with trans fat -- now plans  "to campaign against the global cafe chain Starbucks [SBUX] because of the increased risk of obesity, heart disease and cancer associated with high-calorie, high-fat products it sells."

Starbucks is a high-profile company that has come under fire from advocacy groups in the past, leading to the company making changes in, for example, its policies toward coffee growers and an increase in the amount of fair trade coffee it buys. Good products can come from criticism. In fact, in the same Reuters piece, a spokesman said the company "is 'actively researching' alternatives to high-fat products. The company said it plans to eliminate trans fat from seasonal baked goods -- but not necessarily other products -- by this fall. "