Should whisky,
yaa baa, cigarettes, heroin and champagne be banned because they are unhealthy? Some people might say: "Yes, if something is unhealthy, then governments should ban it to protect citizens and society." If you said "Yes", then you now need to ban popcorn!
The
BBC News report
" 'Popcorn Lung': Wayne Watson Wins $7.2m in US Court" tells us that Wayne Watson "has been awarded $7.2m (£4.4m) in damages" (2012) by the jury in a US court case as a result of developing an incurable lung illness because he had often eaten popcorn. The article says that evidence suggests that a chemical used to give an artificial butter flavour to popcorn causes this irreversible disease.
I think the jury of peers made the right decision in this case. The manufacturers of the popcorn might or might not have known that their product was dangerous, but if they were ignorant because they did not do enough testing before using the chemical, they are responsible for the consequences and must pay compensation to Mr. Watson and others, such as their employees, who have suffered as a result of their failure.
 |
| A convicted health risk. |
But should popcorn now be banned because it's known to be dangerous? I don't think so. If the cinemas and other businesses now put warnings on the product so that customers know there is a risk, that is enough. If customers know that there is a risk and still decide to use the product, it's their responsibility, not the producer's, if they get sick. Of course, if you agree with my reason here, exactly the same reason must also apply to red wine,
yaa baa, cigarettes and cocaine: all of these things are health risks, like popcorn, but if the risk is clearly stated and known, the fact that there is a health risk cannot be a good reason to ban any of these unhealthy products. If we should ban cigarettes because they are unhealthy to smokers, then popcorn must also be banned. And if alcohol should be banned because of the serious social costs it causes, then so too must ice-cream, chocolate cake and fatty pork be made illegal since they all cause obesity which causes massive costs to society today.
'Popcorn lung': Wayne Watson wins $7.2m in US court. (2012, September 20). BBC News US & Canada. Retrieved September 21, 2012 from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19657878
I managed to write something fairly short at last!
ReplyDeleteActually, there is another topic in the news the last few days that I really want to write about, but I don't think I can do it so briefly as this one, and I did want a relatively short example for us to analyse.
I might write a blog response on the other topic later.
In the meantime, what do you think? Must popcorn and chocolate cake be criminalised, or should marijuana and yaa baa be legalised?
I agree with you that putting a warning sign on dangerous products so that the customers know that there is risky to consume that products. However, I would suggest that the producers should add a safe recommended proportion that normal people can consume without causing any illness. In order to indicate that the producers do concern about their consumers and make a genuine experiment before coming up with the recommendation. Then that is the consumers' right to use the products as long as they do harm others.
ReplyDeletePeace,
DeleteI agree completely with your thoughtful response. If people want to take risks for some reason, such as the yummy taste, the should be free to do so, but they must not harm others directly when they do that.
This is also why I think laws against yaa baa, cigarettes, heroin, whisky, cocaine, red wine and other unhealthy drugs of addiction are unjust: if people are only harming themselves, society can have no morally right reason for forcing them to live differently to the way they want to. Of course, when people use alcohol or other drugs and then drive, they directly harm or threaten others, so drinking and driving should be illegal and people who do that should definitely be thrown into prison.
I totally agree with both of your statements. According to the article Peter referred to, I think the verdict in this way imposes dangerous standard to this kind of case, the lawsuit against food manufacturer that distribute people harmful food product. What the court ruled is setting a norm that people are able to accuse the producer despite their mistake.
ReplyDeleteSome may insist that the manufacturer should take responsibility to their products. I do agree with that, in contrast, the consumers accepts to take risk when they pick some unhealthy goods.
If we look for some halfway solution, the one I propose is to enact a new law determining the warning of disadvantages people will get in case of overconsumption. Therefore, people cannot sue any civil cases in this context and must realize that they should take care of themselves at least by considering the label or warning sign on the products.
My point here is same as Peter's that everyone should have freedom to make a decision on issues. As well, he/she should be responsible to his/her decisions.
From peter's artical, I realized that there is one product which it suppost to put waning on it's package, it is coca-cola or pepsi. I remember that Cee made joke about washing lavatory with coca-cola last week but it is true. It is an acidic which has range in ph 2.5 - 4.2. Moreover, some of the ingredient is caffeine that it is harmful. That why I think this product should to have waning label on the product
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that everything in this world has advantage and disadvantage in itself, it depent on the user can use it in the right way or not. :-)
I think popcorn is very healthy snack compare to other snacks. It is only corn and oil. Today, I made popcorn with corn oil. And my pet hamster and I eat it, so I was interested in this title.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw your title, I was surprised and imaged that eating popcorn was bad. And I saw BBC news’ picture, too. I thought popcorn is a poison?? After reading BBC and your article, I thought popcorn is not related in irreversible obstructive lung disease. The problem is just artificial butter of popcorn, so I don’t like title of BBC and also your title. That is why they seem like popcorn is very bad, and I love healthy snack popcorn.
Anyway, I agree with all of you, too. Finally, we have to decide by ourselves. But I think that producers must be shown the harmful chemical information such as nicotine, caffeine and monosodium glutamate (Ajinomoto), and so on.
Mori,
DeleteI was also surprised. It was teh first time I'd ever heard that pop corn could be dangerous. We used to make it at home with real butter when I was a child, and as you remind us, there is no evidence that the butter version causes this lung disease - just a growing waist line.