Wayne Watson, the man who ate at least two bags of microwave popcorn a day for years and developed "popcorn lung" is now suing The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) . Popcorn lung is the name given to the lung condition bronchiolitis obliterans, which is linked to the flavor chemical diacetyl. The lawsuit claims that Kroger "failed to warn that preparing microwave popcorn in a microwave oven as intended and smelling the buttery aroma could expose the consumer to an inhalation hazard and a risk of lung injury."This isn't the only lawsuit over diacetyl flavoring. A lawsuit is currently pending on behalf of workers at a factory in Missouri who mixed large vats of flavors. They say hundreds of workers now have lung disease and respiratory illnesses from inhaling the flavoring. Interestingly enough, the chemical actually is a natural substance that gives butter its flavor. It is also found in some cheeses and wines. Microwave popcorn makers say their formulae are being changed to remove this flavoring from the product.
Was this lung condition a foreseeable consequence for the consumer when the manufacturers made microwave popcorn? I don't think so. Who knew a man would be eating two or more bags of popcorn a day, every day, for years? Should the company have warned him that was too much? Should they also have told him that he might get fat from two bags a day?
There comes a point when consumers must take responsibility for overindulging in things that may or may not be healthy for them. Any food could foreseeably become a hazard to one's health if consumed in large enough quantities. Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and placing the blame on big business? This case is undoubtedly a sympathetic one. No one wants to see this man sick from microwave popcorn. At the same time, I don't think Kroger should be held responsible for his repeated overindulgence in a snack food.
Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.
Where have all the consumers gone?
Yahoo! soars on report that former AOL CEO wants to buy
What ever happened to GE?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-16-2008 @ 2:55PM
Jessie said...
I am sorry but you just can't sue a store because you bought something that they didn't make and got sick from it. It even took the people who makes the popcorn awhile before they knew about popcorn lung. It was not intentionally. That is a waste of time and money. Eating two bags of butter favored popcorn a day (everyday) is not healthy. If I eat at McDonald's or Burger King twice a day everyday then develop Diabetes or have a heart attack. I can't sue them for it. As an adult, you have to take responsibity for you own actions. No one made him eat that. That was all on him.
1-16-2008 @ 3:02PM
Trace Farley said...
Tracy, while I agree that perhaps Kroeger should not be held responsible, the company putting the additive in the microwave popcorn should be. It's absolutely their responsibility to make sure it's safe. It doesn't matter that it's found it cheese or any other food. There are plenty of compounds in foods that should not be eaten in high quantities. Caffeine and theobromine from chocolate are two excellent examples. And, if someone wants to eat two or three bags of micowaved popcorn a day, then they should be able to do that w/out the risk of destroying there lungs.
You ask "Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and placing the blame on big business?" I'll tell you where. When big business starts putting additives, naturally found in nature of not, into food's they're not naturally found in. That's where.
Trace D. Farley
1-16-2008 @ 3:06PM
Tracy Coenen said...
But the additive IS safe, if you're not eating two or more bags of microwave popcorn each day and directly inhaling the fumes when you open the bags. Incidentally, I believe the bags advise consumers to hold the bags away from them when they open them.
1-16-2008 @ 3:31PM
HJS said...
Tracy:
The legal concept of holding a retailer responsible for potentially defective products it sells is well grounded. Keep in mind that the producer of the product is also responsible, and in reality, the retailer simply passes this responsibility down to the manufacturer. Virtually every big retailer requires its vendors to supply insurance certificates for product liability. The problem for the retailer occurs when it sells products from small or unknown manufcturers; if it turns out the product is defective, the manufacturer may not be insured. This legal principle requires a store owner, who has some degree of control over what it sells, to stand behind the product, so that the eventual consumer has a viable redress, should it be warranted.