Top Law Schools

Sooo, there's a definitive link between soda and cancer.

Millions, if not billions of people, drink soda regularly. What do we do about this.... class action?

People of the world vs. Coca-Cola and others?

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic- ... nked-sodas

Ugh, is anything that huge food or beverage companies make actually healthy?

In before the soda vs. pop debate.

Edit: It's pop.

ccs1702 wrote:In before the soda vs. pop debate.

Edit: It's pop.

Sodacancer or popcancer.... both are recognized ITT.

reasonabledoubt wrote:Sooo, there's a definitive link between soda and cancer.

Millions, if not billions of people, drink soda regularly. What do we do about this.... class action?

People of the world vs. Coca-Cola and others?

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic- ... nked-sodas

Ugh, is anything that huge food or beverage companies make actually healthy?

How on earth did you pull a "definitive link" from that article? Muddy water, at best.

I can see the soda industry becoming the next Big Tobacco.

For some of the more alarming effects of soda, check out the research on Aspartame, the artificial sweetner in diet sodas that's been linked to brain tumors and a number of different autoimmune diseases

EDIT: grammar

reasonabledoubt wrote:

ccs1702 wrote:In before the soda vs. pop debate.

Edit: It's pop.

Sodacancer or popcancer.... both are recognized ITT.

In the south it would be Cokecancer, even if you always drank Pepsi.

toolshed wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:Sooo, there's a definitive link between soda and cancer.

Millions, if not billions of people, drink soda regularly. What do we do about this.... class action?

People of the world vs. Coca-Cola and others?

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic- ... nked-sodas

Ugh, is anything that huge food or beverage companies make actually healthy?

How on earth did you pull a "definitive link" from that article? Muddy water, at best.

Tobacco lobbyist? I drew from more than just that article, btw.

Doubling a minuscule risk is still just a minuscule risk.

They didn't record what type of soda, nor whether it was diet or regular soda.

The risk associated with drinking the soda also most likely correlates with many other dietary differences compared with the no-soda control group.

I'm underwhelmed with this study, and I wouldn't panic.

reasonabledoubt wrote:

toolshed wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:Sooo, there's a definitive link between soda and cancer.

Millions, if not billions of people, drink soda regularly. What do we do about this.... class action?

People of the world vs. Coca-Cola and others?

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic- ... nked-sodas

Ugh, is anything that huge food or beverage companies make actually healthy?

How on earth did you pull a "definitive link" from that article? Muddy water, at best.

Tobacco lobbyist?

Ha, no. When they get a larger and more diverse population and can reproduce results (or what I like to call SCIENCE), then we can start talking about a real link. But these studies make headlines for a week until the next study refutes the previous. See the eggs are good for you / bad for you debate that has been going on for 3 decades.

thickfreakness wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:

ccs1702 wrote:In before the soda vs. pop debate.

Edit: It's pop.

Sodacancer or popcancer.... both are recognized ITT.

In the south it would be Cokecancer, even if you always drank Pepsi.

+1 - this is the definitive truth (and the proper way to say it )

I'm addicted to Diet Mt Dew

toolshed wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:

toolshed wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:Sooo, there's a definitive link between soda and cancer.

Millions, if not billions of people, drink soda regularly. What do we do about this.... class action?

People of the world vs. Coca-Cola and others?

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic- ... nked-sodas

Ugh, is anything that huge food or beverage companies make actually healthy?

How on earth did you pull a "definitive link" from that article? Muddy water, at best.

Tobacco lobbyist?

Ha, no. When they get a larger and more diverse population size and can reproduce results (or what I like to call SCIENCE), then we can start talking about a real link. But these studies make headlines for a week until the next study refutes the previous. See the eggs are good for you / bad for you debate that has been going on for 3 decades.

Yeah, because "science" and it's "findings" aren't manipulated by corporations in this country. You don't think the diabetes figures coupled with how much sugar/hfcs products are pushed onto the masses by the beverage and food industry suggests anything on it's own?

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.

ITT: Somebody does not use the concept embodied by his username

Nom Sawyer wrote:ITT: Somebody does not use the concept embodied by his username

Sometimes it's an ironic username/tar combination.

reasonabledoubt wrote: 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?

reasonabledoubt wrote: 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.

+1,000,000

reasonabledoubt wrote: Yeah, because "science" and it's "findings" aren't manipulated by corporations in this country. You don't think the diabetes figures coupled with how much sugar/hfcs products are pushed onto the masses by the beverage and food industry suggests anything on it's own?

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.

Science is almost always sound, thanks to peer review. Corporations come into play when dealing with the consequences of the science, i.e. policy. Just look at how Dow Chemical stonewalled with CFCs and the ozone layer until they had a suitable replacement to sell.

reasonabledoubt wrote:

toolshed wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:

toolshed wrote:
How on earth did you pull a "definitive link" from that article? Muddy water, at best.

Tobacco lobbyist?

Ha, no. When they get a larger and more diverse population size and can reproduce results (or what I like to call SCIENCE), then we can start talking about a real link. But these studies make headlines for a week until the next study refutes the previous. See the eggs are good for you / bad for you debate that has been going on for 3 decades.

Yeah, because "science" and it's "findings" aren't manipulated by corporations in this country. You don't think the diabetes figures coupled with how much sugar/hfcs products are pushed onto the masses by the beverage and food industry suggests anything on it's own?

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.

You may be right, and I won't argue that soda is probably bad for you or that it is in a company's best interest to keep their product in a positive light. Drinking the equivalent of a fistful of sugar everyday can't be good. But here is something I can say with good old-fashioned common sense: a company's motivations or interest in my well-being doesn't PROVE anything. If you want to talk about causality, or even a strong correlation...there isn't enough here to do so. They did a survey, that's about it. I could probably find an equivalent survey that light bulbs cause cancer as well, it doesn't make it true.

reasonabledoubt wrote:Sooo, there's a definitive link between soda and cancer.

Millions, if not billions of people, drink soda regularly. What do we do about this.... class action?

People of the world vs. Coca-Cola and others?

We all die of cancer, duh.

ccs1702 wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote: 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.

thickfreakness wrote:

reasonabledoubt wrote:

ccs1702 wrote:In before the soda vs. pop debate.

Edit: It's pop.

Sodacancer or popcancer.... both are recognized ITT.

In the south it would be Cokecancer, even if you always drank Pepsi.

Parts of the South, you mean. And only with certain people. Most people here call soda by whatever brand it is.

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

imchuckbass58 wrote: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

reasonabledoubt wrote:You probably want to die of cancer