The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Herb Kirsch, said people should not blame others for what they put in their mouths.

"If you came in and ate it, it's not the restaurant's fault you ate it. They didn't make you fat," said Kirsch, who has shed 120 pounds in less than two years through daily exercise and cutting back on sweets.

"If you want to lose weight, it can be done, but you've gotta work at it," said Kirsch, D-Clover.

At least 21 states, including neighboring Georgia, have passed such immunity laws. Bills are pending in 10 other states and Congress.

But the measure that cleared the South Carolina House last April, dubbed the Common Sense Consumption Act, has hit a snag in the Senate. Critics say the bill could create more legal headaches than it prevents.

"We'd rather see the bill die than see it pass as is," said Tom Sponseller, president of the Hospitality Association of South Carolina. "We're better off without a law."

The association opposes a provision that requires restaurants disclose their food's ingredients and nutritional value in exchange for immunity. While that's not a problem for fast food chains whose menus change little, Sponseller said, it puts a burden on sit-down restaurants that change their menus, and their food suppliers, regularly.

The requirement could actually attract attorneys who are looking for the best state to try a case, Sponseller said.

"If other states pass the right form of the bill, it's pushing people to us," Sponseller said. "It would subject South Carolina restaurants to something nobody else has to do."

The state Trial Lawyers Association insists the disclosure requirement needs to stay.

"It's very difficult to hold people accountable for their decisions if you're not giving them the information to make their decisions," said Matthew Richardson, an attorney and association board member. "They want immunity without the responsibility of disclosing what's in their food."

Richardson calls the disclosure a "very minimal, very passive" request. Restaurants would need only to supply the information upon request, not post the information on a poster or in the menu, to qualify for immunity. If restaurants don't want the burden, they don't have to participate, Richardson said.

He noted there's no real need for the bill in South Carolina. No obesity cases have been filed here, and none are in the works, Richardson said.

The bill would protect not only restaurants, but any company that handles food and nonalcoholic drinks between their creation and consumption, including distributors and advertisers. It is set for discussion Wednesday in a Senate Judiciary Committee.