Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by GhostEcho, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:31 PM.
... be able to sue companies like Coke / Pepsi, etc.?
Why or why not?
It depends. On what grounds?
Highly stressed ones.
Is the sole purpose of the existence of Coke/Pepsi/et al specifically to cause weght gain/diabetes? and if so, can you prove it?
If companies like Coke and Pepsi can be proven to be engaging in shady practices like the tobacco or oil companies, then sure.
As science advances, I'm sure companies are going to find ways to make Doritos unnaturally addictive, or to add life-threatening chemicals to diet Pepsi to save an extra penny per bottle. That shit deserves to be punished.
No. These sodas only cause a problem when consumed in large quantities over long periods of time. Having a coke once in a while won't hurt you. Having a couple two-litre bottles every day will. It comes down to personal responsibility.
Anybody should be able to sue anybody. I think it's a bad idea to restrict anyone's right to bring a lawsuit, beyond normal procedural requirements.
Whether such a lawsuit has any merit and whether it might be dismissed are entirely different questions.
Obviously, I agree with you. This question was brought about by something I saw people arguing about on Twitter, and some were saying that yes, people ought to be able to sue Coke and Pepsi for obesity / heart disease / diabetes for the same reason people were able to sue tobacco companies for lung cancer, etc.
Well, since it turned out that tobacco was a hell of a lot more toxic than the tobacco companies were admitting to, and they were purposely increasing the nicotine in cigarettes to make them as addictive as possible . . . yeah, that's a bit different than selling a sugary drink that every knows is a sugary drink.
They're making more and more zero-sugar alternatives to all the classics.
I don't need the flavor of Mountain Dew that fucking bad, I've been drinking lightly flavored seltzers for over 15 years now.
Medical science has shown most of those conditions are genetic. Even obsesity can be genetic, although there are also a lot of obese people who are simply fat fucks who eat too much.
It wasn't until I tried intermittent fasting a few months ago that I discovered how much those zero sugar drinks make you crash and crave sugar. Half a bottle of coke zero made me feel like I was going to die without a cheeseburger.
I would be shocked if Coca-Cola and Pepsi weren't engaging in many of the same practices as tobacco companies = commissioning studies that downplay the risks posed by their sodas, hiring lobbyists and others to bend laws for them, engaging in misleading advertising, adding chemicals to make the product as habit-forming as possible, etc. etc. etc.
As far as I can tell, all of these things are true.
Sure. But, until we get the Coke/Pepsi equivalent of Jeff Wigand, lawsuits will have as much merit as lawsuits against cigarette companies pre-1996.
I was big into nutritional science books a few years ago, and I distinctly remember reading about how food companies makes snacks like chips and crackers exactly flavourful enough to make you want more, but not so flavourful that your craving would ever be satisfied. That's how you end up eating the entire bag without realizing it.
I go back and forth on the flavored seltzers. For a while I will drink nothing else, then I get tired of them and drink diet soda, then I get tired of that and drink Vitamin Water, lather, rinse, repeat.
It's a good thing beer is so nutritious, that's all I can say.
That’s just stupid.
Not for nothing, both Coke and Pepsi make a few sugar free zero calorie drinks. The choice is up to the consumer.
A few years back, NYC mayor Bloomberg opted to hit soda companies with some sort of sugar tax for larger sized drinks. I didn’t mind that idea as much but the idea of outright suing a manufacturer for making something available is a bit too much.
Not sure on the merits of any legal action, though I could be convinced.
What I definitely think is that corporations like these should be restricted in how they can advertise.
What? Like cigarette companies? I don't think that would help anything.
Until there is actual evidence of intentional harm or even negligence, neither company should be restricted in advertising or sued for a user's complete lack of self-control.
And that's coming from someone who is totally addicted to fast food and am fat because of it.
Chili lime Doritos
You've said a lot of things I disagreed with over the years, sometimes very strongly, but this time you've crossed a line. This is heresy!
Burn him at the stake!
Indeed. The flavour is sacrascant. The caffeine and excess sugar... not so much.
Mountain Dew, the soda that tastes like...Mountain Dew.
I liked the reformulated stuff better than the original, myself.
It won't get far.
Did you mean to ask if Coke is liable for bad health?
The only thing coke is liable for is me having a great time staying up all night writing term papers.
Oh, Coke. Nvm.
But the no/low-sugar variants almost certainly have their own separate risks, which presumably Big Pop has also done its best to obscure.
I think the big difference is that tobacco is literally addictive while pop is (as far as we know) either only metaphorically addictive or much less so, and the harms associated with cigarette smoke are generally fatal whereas you can live with and manage diabetes and obesity.
Also, the Googles seems to suggest that there have been attempts to sue along these lines already.
This next one is about a failed lawsuit that alleged that Coke should be held liable for marketing diet soda as causing weight loss when they cause weight gain
And here's one looking to the the disparate impact on minorities:
I recommend against lathering and rinsing with Vitamin Water. The added sugar will make you all sticky. Better to drink it.
Separate names with a comma.