Product Warning Labels and Protection Against Liability Lawsuits

Since the first major lawsuit settled against tobacco companies in 1998, there has been much controversy over whether or not these lawsuits are justified. On the pro side of the argument there is much evidence to support that the tobacco industries have long known about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Furthermore that this knowledge warrants the need for compensation. In addition the industry has concealed this knowledge from the public. On the con side of the argument evidence shows that these lawsuits have been based on false claims primarily in regard to health care costs for smokers. Furthermore, the regulations set by the settlement of the 1998 multistate lawsuit have established a legal president which allows individuals

Then the gain percent decreases and it isn’t such a lucrative business anymore. It’d be best for them to make business in another department. Therefore, I agree with Coffman’s claim of making other companies that sell products just as harmful as tobacco pay the same financial settlement to the states. I stand with this claim because tobacco has the same impact on people as alcohol and guns. Just like tobacco, alcohol deteriorates health and causes organ malfunction which lead to death and in some cases, even premature death. Guns have the same end product as tobacco because if guns are used against other people, many end up dead. With tobacco it leads you to lung cancer and later, death. In fact, guns have a worse

If we look at the tobacco industry we clearly see that the manufactures that make tobacco products help fund and provide research on the use of their product, not hinder it. We the people have access to that information, and our right to choose whether or not we use tobacco products remains in our hands.

Everyday you consume things may it be food, drinks, or prescription drugs. Most people will just absent mindedly intake these products subconsciously knowing that they are monitored by government organizations ensuring your safety. It has not always been that was and has progressed greatly throughout the years. although all consumer safety organizations may not be reputable, they do much more good than harm. Consumer safety is something that is extremely important to the American family, and has help thousands of people survive. Consumer safety is something that has allowed America to progress to where it is today.

Tobacco companies denied the health effects of nicotine, knowing fully that the substance was highly addictive. The industry also used misleading advertising that never showed the negative effects of their products. They targeted children with their misleading marketing campaigns causing generations of smokers. As a result of these actions, the public is suffering the consequences. "The government of Canada spends 4 billion dollars in direct health care costs every year because of tobacco" (BGMI, 2005). The settlements resulting from lawsuits against tobacco companies will regain some of those costs and take off some strain on health care system due to the treatment tobacco related diseases. The settlements can also help treat current patients with emphysema, cancer and other smoking-related diseases.

The most recent update to the Tobacco Products Control Act, was in September 2011, in the Tobacco Products Labelling Regulations for Cigarettes and Little Cigars. This required sixteen health warnings, including pictures such as tongue cancer, lung cancer, and even strokes, that must cover 75% of the front and back of tobacco products in Canada. (Tabacco Labelling Resource Center). It also had to include eight new health information messages, as well as four new toxic emissions statements. (Health Canada). In a study done by the World Health Organization between Canada, the United States, and Australia, it was proven that the pictorial warnings located on tobacco packages were considered more likely to be noticed than text-only labels, more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks of smoking, and that the pictorial warnings were associated with increased motivation to quit smoking. (World Health

Shalene Kolchek can sue Val Porter, a dealer who sells and sold the spa to Kolchek to recover Litisha’s injuries under the product liability for misrepresentation. She can also sue Great Lakes to recover Litisha’s injuries under the product liability based on negligence and strict product liability.

was 35.1 billion dollars. With a product that kills so many of its customers, your only concern in this industry is to increase sales and make a profit. Definitely in the tobacco industry and most others, it is my opinion that you cannot cater to the best interest of both the company and the consumer. Even a good company with the best intentions will eventually come to a crossroad where choosing what is best for one will not have such a great outcome for the other. Their best interests will ultimately conflict, and you will be forced make a choice between the two.

Based in Irving Coffman's argument that “If tobacco companies have paid a financial settlement with several states due to the health problems it caused. Then, manufacturers of other legal harmful products such as alcohol and guns should also have to pay financial settlements in return for the problems they cause.” I strongly agree with his point of view in order to help prevent more people from damaging their health, and suffering later on. Moreover, if all the legal harmful manufacturers start to pay a financial settlement, then the prices of these products would raise up, which might help to limited people from buying these harmful products because not everybody can afford what others can. Before, most of the time that I was in my sport

Warning labels tell people not to combine products or to be aware of danger. Their purpose is keep the world safe. That is their purpose. That is their message to its readers. Everything

It takes two puffs from an inhaler, every day at six in the morning for my sister to bring equilibrium to her life and asthma in order to live through a normal day. If she doesn’t incorporate this into her daily routine, she is essentially to be bedridden until she does so, no exception. The inhaler that she carries in her purse has become as essential to her life as her desire to breathe freely. The symptoms worsen as her airways are exposed to any kid of second hand smoke, cold air, or pollen. All though manufacturing smoking cigarettes and alcohol, and guns is not illegal since their bona fide use is ultimately not centered around harm. Irving Coffman, a dilettante in the social effects of the manufacturing of legal but harmful products, introduces his sentiment on manufacturers responsibility to the general harm caused by their products by sharing the ongoing action by some cigarette manufacturers to recompense society for the effects being perpetuated by their products. Coffman correlates the actions between the tobacco companies to the responsibility of all other companies of all legal but harmful products to do the same.

If you’re eating things that you thought were food, you’ll probably sue the fast food company. 65% of fast food restaurants add chemical in their foods such as KFC and McDonalds. People that eat fast food everyday are actually eating mutated animals with chemicals shot in them. For the past twelve years fast foods restaurants have found a way to make their meats bigger. The government need to quickly put warning labels on fast foods because this is out of control. The public wants to know what they’re consuming. Right now obesity rates are going up because of fast foods. Fast food restaurants need warning labels for the following reasons: people want to know what they’re eating, they may be allergic to a product, their body may cant take extra

In conclusion, I'm against warning labels because it doesn’t help people stop eating or drinking these things. Sugar is a killer. Warning labels are a waste of time. Sugar is everywhere. These reasons add up to why i have the right to be against warning labels. Warning labels do not help our society and the young ones.

Health concerns are the primary issue for nearly all of the stakeholders. Employees care about their job security and integrity for their occupations. The government is responsible for ensuring the safety and overall welfare of its community. If tobacco is known as a health hazard to the citizens, then it is the responsibility of the government to act on it. The customers of the tobacco industry are another huge factor. Of course, they care about their health, the ingredients of the product, the quality, the cost, etc. Then there are the owners and shareholders who, while they may also care about the reputation of the business, they are mainly concerned with the continuation of the corporation and the profits from it.

Does the corporation decision respect the canons of justice or fairness to all parties involved? The answer to this question is no. The fact the tobacco industry in general, has misled the public on the addictive qualities of cigarettes. For years the industry has with held information on the health risk involved with smoking. So the tobacco companies have not been fair to their consumers, especially in the international markets, where the standards are much lower. Are there critical factors that justify the violation of a canon of justice? There are no critical factors that would justify the tobacco industry to mislead and take advantage of the disadvantaged people who live in third world countries. Reject the decision. I do believe adults should have the right to make informed choices about the risks they do or do not want to take. I believe that the manufacturers of products that present health risks have a responsibility to help the government provide the public with the information necessary to make informed choices. Here is where I feel the tobacco industry is wrong. To protect profits, the tobacco industry has misinformed the public on the harmful qualities of smoking. Our government has stepped in to protect us from being taken advantage of. Some of the responsibility of protecting the rights of individuals in these third world countries falls on their government.