Man Wins $7 Million Lawsuit Vs Popcorn Company |
||
|
Man wins $7 million lawsuit vs popcorn company
Which would be relevant if he was suing over heart disease and not his lungs.
Think someone should let the news agency know dicetyl and diacetyl are different compounds?
Quickly made microwave butter aside, popcorn really isn't bad for it. The human body can't digest corn properly and that doesn't change much when you pop the kernels. It's basically just fiber and filler. Most diets even recommend popcorn with a light amount of salt to get your salty/crunchy fix.
Don't be knocking the popcorn itself Moon, knock the butter. Moonwalkerv said: » He ate "about" two bags of microwave popcorn a day. If you lack the commonsense to understand that that by itself is unhealthy, I doubt a company putting any form of warning on their product will change your eventual outcome. The problem here is that's not the point of the lawsuit. It's not a healthy diet, but I'm pretty sure the dude knew that and kept shoveling it in anyway. He's suing because he's developed very serious lung problems from breathing in fumes from the popcorn that the package didn't warn about, which imo is legit. Otherwise if it was a case of "I got fat and ended up with diabetes and high cholesterol, I think I'm gonna sue!" then I'd completely agree with you. Edit: it is very possible though that such a warning won't effect some people's choices if they're that hard-headed, but I'm pretty sure that I at least would think twice about over-eating a snack if it came with a lung cancer warning. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » A company puts out an untested product that was shown to make its own workers sick and it's the consumers fault for getting sick from it? Wow, it's currency change thread all over again. Yeah, not being informed about a potentially harmful chemical is the same as having all the information infront of you to make an informed deicision on buying currency. Wrongly putting the onus of the problem on the victim/consumer is what I was getting at. Sorry I brought it up honestly, since the argument has been played out already (and locked!).
The article isn't really specific as to what his lung problems are exactly. Like is he just developing breathing problems because of a weight issue or was the compound in the butter the actual cause- is my question.
EDIT: If it is bronchiolitis obliterans, thats kinda shitty cause the FDA doesn't mandate warnings for diacetyl on food products.... It's pretty clear that if the factory workers were getting sick, than something in the popcorn was making consumers sick. It's really that simple. The man had every right to sue.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Wrongly putting the onus of the problem on the victim/consumer is what I was getting at. Sorry I brought it up honestly, since the argument has been played out already (and locked!). Basicially, what you're saying then is that even if popcorn company put a warning label (which is the whole premise of this guy's case) that it still wouldn't be the consumers fault. I agree that this person should have been warned about the potentially harmful chemical and it wasn't his fault that he developed the respiratory problem; however, you still have to come to the realization that too much of anything can be harmful and that is one of the points that the article is trying to make. Bismarck.Azagthothe said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Wrongly putting the onus of the problem on the victim/consumer is what I was getting at. Sorry I brought it up honestly, since the argument has been played out already (and locked!). Basicially, what you're saying than is that even if popcorn company put a warning label (which is the whole premise of this guy's case) that it still wouldn't be the consumers fault. I think what he was talking about was if the popcorn was labeled "hey this might give you lung issues" then no it wouldn't be the company's fault. This guy didn't have a label so he didn't know, hence company fault. Odin.Eikechi said: » It's pretty clear that if the factory workers were getting sick, than something in the popcorn was making consumers sick. It's really that simple. The man had every right to sue. Yah but that's an industrial setting that's completely different. There are always risks when your exposing yourself to chemicals either in high concentration or long term. Look at Splenda. Splenda in small amounts, is supposedly ok. But in excessive amounts it has been documented to cause DNA damage in mice. You don't see warnings about splenda on products... What I'm getting at is the FDA has been knowledgeable of this compounds possible effects in food and has not issued a mandate warning. So why is the company liable for the FDA's lack of regulation. Because it's still toxic? If you KNOW something is toxic, just because you're not FORCED to put a warning on your label doesn't mean you're not willfully putting toxic materials into your product. You're just as liable, because you had said knowledge and refused to warn your consumers. Why? So they don't find out your product is making them sick just so you can profit a lil more? That's some scumbag type mentality.
Funny me and my Linkshell where talking about this.What i said was the only lawsuit that i can even understand was the one that the lady made that her coffee from mcdonalds.This one is just a really really bad joke.
Odin.Eikechi said: » Because it's still toxic? If you KNOW something is toxic, just because you're not FORCED to put a warning on your label doesn't mean you're not willfully putting toxic materials into your product. You're just as liable, because you had said knowledge and refused to warn your consumers. Why? So they don't find out your product is making them sick just so you can profit a lil more? That's some scumbag type mentality. Its not toxic in small amounts lol It's still in numerous food products lol The FDA hasn't issued a ban on it lol Its the same thing as splenda. so now everything that has splenda should have a warning lol No one told me sticking a plunger up my *** is bad, why should I be blamed for pushing it too far up my ***? That's what I got out of your comment baconwrap. I wish someone would have told me sticking a plunger too far up my *** would end badly.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Odin.Eikechi said: » Because it's still toxic? If you KNOW something is toxic, just because you're not FORCED to put a warning on your label doesn't mean you're not willfully putting toxic materials into your product. You're just as liable, because you had said knowledge and refused to warn your consumers. Why? So they don't find out your product is making them sick just so you can profit a lil more? That's some scumbag type mentality. Its not toxic in small amounts lol It's still in numerous food products lol The FDA hasn't issued a ban on it lol Its the same thing as splenda. so now everything that has splenda should have a warning lol It's a CONSUMER FOOD PRODUCT. No part of it should be TOXIC in small or large doses. This guy inhaled a ton of popcorn. He's not suing because he's fat/has heart problems. The damn popcorn gave him LUNG problems. How is that not toxic, and how would the company willing putting this crap in their food not be liable? Seriously? Siren.Fupafighters said: » No one told me sticking a plunger up my *** is bad, why should I be blamed for pushing it too far up my ***? That's what I got out of your comment baconwrap. I wish someone would have told me sticking a plunger too far up my *** would end badly. Ok your comparing a chemical compound found in food products, which has documented side effects in industrial settings and in high concentrations to a plunger? Ummm.. no... just no... Odin.Eikechi said: » It's a CONSUMER FOOD PRODUCT. No part of it should be TOXIC in small or large doses. This guy inhaled a ton of popcorn. He's not suing because he's fat/has heart problems. The damn popcorn gave him LUNG problems. How is that not toxic, and how would the company willing putting this crap in their food not be liable? Seriously? Ok so we should ban/issue out warnings on products than contain Splenda? Because if you consume 1k+ packets of it the company should be liable lol. EDIT: posting on my cell sorry for double post. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Siren.Fupafighters said: » No one told me sticking a plunger up my *** is bad, why should I be blamed for pushing it too far up my ***? That's what I got out of your comment baconwrap. I wish someone would have told me sticking a plunger too far up my *** would end badly. Ok your comparing a chemical compound found in food products, which has documented side effects in industrial settings and in high concentrations to a plunger? Ummm.. no... just no... Siren.Fupafighters said: » Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Siren.Fupafighters said: » No one told me sticking a plunger up my *** is bad, why should I be blamed for pushing it too far up my ***? That's what I got out of your comment baconwrap. I wish someone would have told me sticking a plunger too far up my *** would end badly. Ok your comparing a chemical compound found in food products, which has documented side effects in industrial settings and in high concentrations to a plunger? Ummm.. no... just no... There are numerous other food products/ingredients that have been documented as toxic in high concentrations. Splenda is one of them. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Odin.Eikechi said: » It's a CONSUMER FOOD PRODUCT. No part of it should be TOXIC in small or large doses. This guy inhaled a ton of popcorn. He's not suing because he's fat/has heart problems. The damn popcorn gave him LUNG problems. How is that not toxic, and how would the company willing putting this crap in their food not be liable? Seriously? Ok so we should ban/issue out warnings on products than contain Splenda? Because if you consume 1k+ packets of it the company should be liable lol. EDIT: posting on my cell sorry for double post. Was the splenda testing done on humans? Mice =/= humans. I know they make decent lab subjects, but they aren't quite the same. Also, people know too much sugar would put you in a diabetic coma anyways, so I fail to see this comparison anyways. We KNOW too much sugar is bad. Consumers don't typically think "well popcorn FUMES will jack up my lungs"... Still failing to see your comparison here. I think Baconwrap is just arguing because he knows he's wrong but doesn't want to admit it.
Odin.Eikechi said: » Was the splenda testing done on humans? Mice =/= humans. I know they make decent lab subjects, but they aren't quite the same. Also, people know too much sugar would put you in a diabetic coma anyways, so I fail to see this comparison anyways. We KNOW too much sugar is bad. Consumers don't typically think "well popcorn FUMES will jack up my lungs"... Still failing to see your comparison here. They don't equate because you obviously have no background in basic biochem. Do you even understand how DNA works or how its composed? Also, considering I never mentioned sucrose and you are implying that sucralose can induce a diabetic coma lol. Anyways...fine lets use diet soda and phosphate as an example....If i consume enough diet soda I could potentially induce phosphate poisoning. Should we post warnings on diet sodas? Lets not even get started on the long term effects of phenylalanine! I think you're severely grasping at straws Bacon. I'm sorry but I've come to find that happens a lot with you on here. I'm just gonna drop this because I'm obviously not getting through to you...
Bismarck.Azagthothe said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Wrongly putting the onus of the problem on the victim/consumer is what I was getting at. Sorry I brought it up honestly, since the argument has been played out already (and locked!). Basicially, what you're saying then is that even if popcorn company put a warning label (which is the whole premise of this guy's case) that it still wouldn't be the consumers fault. I agree that this person should have been warned about the potentially harmful chemical and it wasn't his fault that he developed the respiratory problem; however, you still have to come to the realization that too much of anything can be harmful and that is one of the points that the article is trying to make. Uh... where did I say such a thing? It was a comment on the few posts above mine where the victim in the case was being called stupid for eating popcorn. Odin.Eikechi said: » I think you're severely grasping at straws Bacon. I'm sorry but I've come to find that happens a lot with you on here. I'm just gonna drop this because I'm obviously not getting through to you... First you attempt to lecture me on how sucralose can induce a diabetic coma even though it doesn't go through the same biopathway as sucrose. That I found hilarious. And now your failing to recognize how diacetyl:popcorn is to phosphate:diet soda. Chief I didn't "lecture" anybody about sugar. Keep your tude in check mate. You're defending a company that willingly put toxic compounds in it's FOOD. The "well it's typical for factory workers to get sick" argument is BS. Factory workers get sick when there are toxins to be inhaled. Safe factories don't just all the sudden have workers that keel over, over time, due to the nature of factories. So this compound is in fact, toxic. The folks on page 1 thought it was legit. Why can't you see this? Ugh...
This is a very touchy case. Unfortunately, a person's well-being was the victim here. From inhaling small amounts of a chemical daily, a man developed a lung condition. The manufaturer of the product that was being inhaled had been sued previously by workers that worked with the chemical in question and found liable in those cases. They continued to put a known harmful product into their FOOD PRODUCT. I see no reason why we are even debating on this. The manufacturer is liable, will have to pay, and should be forced to remove all of the product with said chemical in it from the shelves. I believe in corporate frugality, but when said frugality is literally harming your intended customer base you will have no customer base left eventually. Use some common sense.
Odin.Eikechi said: » Chief I didn't "lecture" anybody about sugar. Keep your tude in check mate. You're defending a company that willingly put toxic compounds in it's FOOD. The "well it's typical for factory workers to get sick" argument is BS. Factory workers get sick when there are toxins to be inhaled. Safe factories don't just all the sudden have workers that keel over, over time, due to the nature of factories. So this compound is in fact, toxic. The folks on page 1 thought it was legit. Why can't you see this? Ugh... My point is there are many ingredients in the supermarket that are toxic or that have documented long term effects when consumed excessively. However, you don't see labels being put on those products because the "ordinary" consumer doesn't consume that much of a particular product. EDIT: And thats exactly what we have here. This is the statement from the FDA/SCOGS regarding diacetyl. FDA Link Quote: Diacetyl is added to some foods for flavoring purposes. It is metabolized in mammals, is of low acute toxicity, and the no-adverse-effect level, based on a 90-day study in rats, is approximately 90 mg per kg body weight. The per capita daily intake of diacetyl added to food, both as a component of starter distillate and as diacetyl itself , is estimated to be less than 0.3mg. Available studies of the biological effects of commercial starter distillate consist of two report; the one showed that starter distillate exhibited no mutagenic activity in in vitro test systems; the other showed that it was without teratogenic activity when administered orally in doses as high as 1600mg per kg body weight to pregnant mice, rats, hamsters, and rabbits. The per capita daily intake of starter distillate is about 5mg or about 0.1mg on an anhydrous basis. Diacetyl and acetic acid are major components of starter distillate; total daily per capita intake of all organic components of starter distillate, other than diacetyl and acetic acid, is estimated to be less than 0.08 mg per body weight. Based on the nature of the starting material and the process used to produce starter distillate, the Select Committee has no grounds to suspect that the small amount of unidentified ingredients poses a hazard. It would appear that the possibility of hazard from the addition of starter distillate is minimal. However, no food grade standars exist for starter distillate. It is a mixture of many substances, not all of which have been identified, whose qualitiative and quantitative composition may vary depending on the combinations of microorganism used in the starter culture, and on the conditions of steam distillation. Hence, there is need for establishing practical food grade standards for starter distillate specifying acceptable limits of variability. In light of these considerations the Select Committee concludes that: There is no evidence in the available information on diacetyl or starter distillate that demonstrates or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect a hazard to the public when they are used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in the future. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2026 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||