Soda and cancer.... class action? Forum

[reasonabledoubt]

You probably want to die of cancer

I think you misinterpreted the context....

[toolshed]

Has anyone in this thread actually taken torts?

There are huge problems with establishing a product liability case for soda causing cancer, even if the study is true (and one study definitely won't be enough for litigation). To name a few:

-Sodas probably aren't "unreasonably dangerous" in the legal sense under a consumer expectations test or a risk/utility test
-It's very hard to prove proximate cause
-It's even harder to prove cause-in-fact for any individual plaintiff - you'd have to get the court to recognize some sort of "loss of chance" theory (which has never been applied in a product liability context) or adopt market share liability (which most courts do not do)
-For states that recognize it, there are valid assumption of the risk/comparative negligence defenses

This all makes sense but is too complex. All you have to do is read the article.

They are basing their results on 140 TOTAL cases of cancer. Out of those only a COUPLE DOZEN drank soda....

Sometimes scientists don't understand statistics, sample sizes, or correlation vs causation at all

Terribly small sample size, terribly limited geographical location, and they don't address (that I see) the possibility that those who drank soda may have other things in common that could be risk factors. It's a survey, and surveys are terrible at experimental control.

[Zapatero]

Here's something I can confidently say with good old fashioned common sense: Big food/bev industry doesn't care about your health and most of the food-stuffs made through the industrial process (preservatives/chemicals/hfcs/additives/etc) aren't healthy.

Actually, I think you could argue that big food/bev has a vested interest in the health of its consumers. Have you considered that the consumers themselves are the ones who don't care about their health?

First of all, I don't use the term or corresponding ideology connected to "consumers."

I use "people." I don't think people, you know, the ones who are supposed to have a reasonable chance at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are born to "consume" or be defined in such an archaic way.

"Consumer" is a term invented by corporations to dehumanize people. It's easier to think of them as variables in a profit-motive then. It's far easier to sell them things that will invariably kill them that way too. Consume consumers! You probably don't care about your health anyway. You probably want to die of cancer.

I stand uncompelled by your comment.

This response is totally nonsensical.

Still, I avoid pop/soda/coke at all costs, count my calories obsessively, and am all-around quite health-conscious. There is plenty of information available to decide what is healthy and what isn't. If more people made the effort to watch what they put into their bodies, the problems associated with an unhealthy diet could be mitigated.

What would you suggest? Outlaw unhealthy food?

[Nom Sawyer]

Has anyone in this thread actually taken torts?

There are huge problems with establishing a product liability case for soda causing cancer, even if the study is true (and one study definitely won't be enough for litigation). To name a few:

-Sodas probably aren't "unreasonably dangerous" in the legal sense under a consumer expectations test or a risk/utility test
-It's very hard to prove proximate cause
-It's even harder to prove cause-in-fact for any individual plaintiff - you'd have to get the court to recognize some sort of "loss of chance" theory (which has never been applied in a product liability context) or adopt market share liability (which most courts do not do)
-For states that recognize it, there are valid assumption of the risk/comparative negligence defenses

This all makes sense but is too complex. All you have to do is read the article.

They are basing their results on 140 TOTAL cases of cancer. Out of those only a COUPLE DOZEN drank soda....

Sometimes scientists don't understand statistics, sample sizes, or correlation vs causation at all

Terribly small sample size, terribly limited geographical location, and they don't address (that I see) the possibility that those who drank soda may have other things in common that could be risk factors. It's a survey, and surveys are terrible at experimental control.

Ivan the Terrible approves this message!

[NU_Jet55]

I am drinking a Diet Mountain Dew while reading this thread. It's delicious.

[toolshed]

Has anyone in this thread actually taken torts?

There are huge problems with establishing a product liability case for soda causing cancer, even if the study is true (and one study definitely won't be enough for litigation). To name a few:

-Sodas probably aren't "unreasonably dangerous" in the legal sense under a consumer expectations test or a risk/utility test
-It's very hard to prove proximate cause
-It's even harder to prove cause-in-fact for any individual plaintiff - you'd have to get the court to recognize some sort of "loss of chance" theory (which has never been applied in a product liability context) or adopt market share liability (which most courts do not do)
-For states that recognize it, there are valid assumption of the risk/comparative negligence defenses

This all makes sense but is too complex. All you have to do is read the article.

They are basing their results on 140 TOTAL cases of cancer. Out of those only a COUPLE DOZEN drank soda....

Sometimes scientists don't understand statistics, sample sizes, or correlation vs causation at all

Terribly small sample size, terribly limited geographical location, and they don't address (that I see) the possibility that those who drank soda may have other things in common that could be risk factors. It's a survey, and surveys are terrible at experimental control.

Ivan the Terrible approves this message!

I know, as soon as I hit submit, I realized what a limited vocabulary I have...

[Nom Sawyer]

its ok, even with limited vocab your points are spot on

[GATORTIM]

I am drinking a Diet Mountain Dew while reading this thread. It's delicious.

haha...me too! I prob have 3 cases of this shit at my house for 12/21/2012

[reasonabledoubt]

Here's something I can confidently say with good old fashioned common sense: Big food/bev industry doesn't care about your health and most of the food-stuffs made through the industrial process (preservatives/chemicals/hfcs/additives/etc) aren't healthy.

Actually, I think you could argue that big food/bev has a vested interest in the health of its consumers. Have you considered that the consumers themselves are the ones who don't care about their health?

First of all, I don't use the term or corresponding ideology connected to "consumers."

I use "people." I don't think people, you know, the ones who are supposed to have a reasonable chance at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are born to "consume" or be defined in such an archaic way.

"Consumer" is a term invented by corporations to dehumanize people. It's easier to think of them as variables in a profit-motive then. It's far easier to sell them things that will invariably kill them that way too. Consume consumers! You probably don't care about your health anyway. You probably want to die of cancer.

I stand uncompelled by your comment.

This response is totally nonsensical.

Still, I avoid pop/soda/coke at all costs, count my calories obsessively, and am all-around quite health-conscious. There is plenty of information available to decide what is healthy and what isn't. If more people made the effort to watch what they put into their bodies, the problems associated with an unhealthy diet could be mitigated.

What would you suggest? Outlaw unhealthy food?

The literary device I was trying to use might have failed me there... I didn't mean that literally. Anyways, stop thinking like a lawyer for just a moment, I know we're all excited, but just consider the dynamics of how far detached big corporations are from the well-being of individuals. It's something worth considering if you, well, care about people in general.

[NU_Jet55]

I know, as soon as I hit submit, I realized what a terrible vocabulary I have...

[Nom Sawyer]

I know, as soon as I hit submit, I realized what a terrible vocabulary I have...

hahahaha.. it'd be great if he said that.. you meant toolshed up there tho ^..

[NU_Jet55]

I am drinking a Diet Mountain Dew while reading this thread. It's delicious.

haha...me too! I prob have 3 cases of this shit at my house for 12/21/2012

3 cases? That wouldn't last me a month. After that, what would be the point of living?

[toolshed]

I know, as soon as I hit submit, I realized what a terrible vocabulary I have...

Damn, I missed an opportunity there...

[Zapatero]

The literary device I was trying to use might have failed me there... I didn't mean that literally. Anyways, stop thinking like a lawyer for just a moment, I know we're all excited, but just consider the dynamics of how far detached big corporations are from the well-being of individuals. It's something worth considering if you, well, care about people in general.

I didn't take it literally, but I wasn't sure what your point was. I agree that they're detached, but I don't see what the possible alternative could be. Part of the reason that they're so successful is that they can produce cheap food that doesn't spoil. Many people can't afford to buy unprocessed, fresh food and have no other choice but to opt for the less healthy alternative. I think we can agree that eating unhealthy is better than not eating at all.

[GATORTIM]

I am drinking a Diet Mountain Dew while reading this thread. It's delicious.

haha...me too! I prob have 3 cases of this shit at my house for 12/21/2012

3 cases? That wouldn't last me a month. After that, what would be the point of living?

Ha! No, 3 cases just for that particular day...

[NU_Jet55]

I am drinking a Diet Mountain Dew while reading this thread. It's delicious.

haha...me too! I prob have 3 cases of this shit at my house for 12/21/2012

3 cases? That wouldn't last me a month. After that, what would be the point of living?

Ha! No, 3 cases just for that particular day...

In that case, if the Mayans' predictions come true I'm coming to your place (don't worry, I'll bring 3 cases of my own as well).

[reasonabledoubt]

The literary device I was trying to use might have failed me there... I didn't mean that literally. Anyways, stop thinking like a lawyer for just a moment, I know we're all excited, but just consider the dynamics of how far detached big corporations are from the well-being of individuals. It's something worth considering if you, well, care about people in general.

I didn't take it literally, but I wasn't sure what your point was. I agree that they're detached, but I don't see what the possible alternative could be. Part of the reason that they're so successful is that they can produce cheap food that doesn't spoil. Many people can't afford to buy unprocessed, fresh food and have no other choice but to opt for the less healthy alternative. I think we can agree that eating unhealthy is better than not eating at all.

If you believe, that in 2010 America (given all of our resources, technology, land, farms and so on) that it would be simply be impossible to feed the people of this country fresh, healthy food, then games over, big food corps have won. You're sufficiently indoctrinated. Bullshit. We have the technology to split atoms yet can't allocate some of that ingeniuty (say, in the context of distribution channels) to ensure people in this country have access to affordable, fresh, healthy food? The only thing poor people can eat are HFCS, chemicals, fat and preservatives? I don't buy it, both figuratively and literally. The state of food and health (a relationship often ignored in health care debates) in modern society is a predictable byproduct of a certain corporate ideology. (re: calling people "consumers") Also, when it comes to the health (and wealth) of a nation (sorry to sound like Adam smith) I think our generation, insofar as we need to step up as vangards of culture and more, need to take steps to change this.

Here's a creative solution... an "alternative," so to speak: Boycott food companies that feed people chemical laced shit. And then, spread the word. That'll inspire some change. I'm sure all the bright minds in these threads (if they care at all about the state of the country for their kids) will come up with even more creative solutions.

Sorry for ranting... I'm a contradiction at times: Want to be a lawyer but deeply humanistic as well.

[Nom Sawyer]

The literary device I was trying to use might have failed me there... I didn't mean that literally. Anyways, stop thinking like a lawyer for just a moment, I know we're all excited, but just consider the dynamics of how far detached big corporations are from the well-being of individuals. It's something worth considering if you, well, care about people in general.

I didn't take it literally, but I wasn't sure what your point was. I agree that they're detached, but I don't see what the possible alternative could be. Part of the reason that they're so successful is that they can produce cheap food that doesn't spoil. Many people can't afford to buy unprocessed, fresh food and have no other choice but to opt for the less healthy alternative. I think we can agree that eating unhealthy is better than not eating at all.

If you believe, that in 2010 America (given all of our resources, technology, land, farms and so on) that it would be simply be impossible to feed the people of this country fresh, healthy food, then games over, big food corps have won. You're sufficiently indoctrinated. Bullshit. We have the technology to split atoms yet can't allocate some of that ingeniuty (say, in the context of distribution channels) to ensure people in this country have access to affordable, fresh, healthy food? The only thing poor people can eat are HFCS, chemicals, fat and preservatives? I don't buy it, both figuratively and literally. The state of food and health (a relationship often ignored in health care debates) in modern society is a predictable byproduct of a certain corporate ideology. (re: calling people "consumers") Also, when it comes to the health (and wealth) of a nation (sorry to sound like Adam smith) I think our generation, insofar as we need to step up as vangards of culture and more, need to take steps to change this.

Here's a creative solution... an "alternative," so to speak: Boycott food companies that feed people chemical laced shit. And then, spread the word. That'll inspire some change. I'm sure all the bright minds in these threads (if they care at all about the state of the country for their kids) will come up with even more creative solutions.

Sorry for ranting... I'm a contradiction at times: Want to be a lawyer but believe in CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!1one11 .

Seriously reasonabledoubt? You make sense some of the times, but why is it every third time I see your posts your spouting off on another far-fetched theory?

[superserial]

sweet, I've had 4 diet cokes already today. will probably have a few more.

[mpasi]

sweet, I've had 4 diet cokes already today. will probably have a few more.

Your kidneys must love you. :p Can we just all say that SOMETHING is going to kill us at some point and leave it at that?