Quote:
Originally Posted by fdpaq0580
i'm in a New York state of mind.
Officials and attorneys, maybe with an axe to grind, making a show out of something they are responsible for and blaming the manufacturer for. If the product was faulty (poisonous or dangerous) then the manufacturer could be held liable. But a manufacturer should not (necessarily) be held accountable for what a customer does with the product after purchase.
|
Let me suggest a way to think about this issue. If Pepsi decided to sell soda in a lead can, carefully treated so no lead leached into the soda but of course the container when disposed would add lead to the soil or water as it broke down. No harm came to the direct consumer, it was used as directed, and only after disposal was the environment damaged with a poison that has subtle but potentially very serious health consequences for animals and humans....
Should Pepsi be responsible for selling such a lead polluting product? I think you'd say yes, absolutely.
Microplastics are increasingly being recognized as a very long term health hazard and they don't break down.
Pepsi surely could sell its products in paper or glass or aluminum. It does not have to sell it in a dangerous container. Perhaps there are plastics which break down completely and don't leave microplastic pollution but Pepsi does not use those.
The basis of this suit is that NYS is claiming that the product is dangerous and toxic which you already accepted as a legitimate reason for litigation.