5 ms·

It seems very strange to attack Coke and Pepsi for this. Shouldn't the target be recycling programs that claim to be recycling plastic bottles, but actually don

by lacker 7y ago

It seems very strange to attack Coke and Pepsi for this. Shouldn't the target be recycling programs that claim to be recycling plastic bottles, but actually don't?

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
If you knowingly produce single-use items that are neither biodegradable nor recyclable, you share culpability.
- LanceH 7y ago
  What law or contract? How were the labels wrong? There is nothing in this article and I'm sure your view of all single use products must be biodegradable or recyclable isn't law.
  - wffurr 7y ago
    Moral culpability. It should be legal culpability as well, but we haven't written the law yet.
    - LanceH 7y ago
      This thread and the article are both about a lawsuit. Saying they should be culpable would imply legal culpability in this context, of which they have none.
      - ectospheno 7y ago
        If you make a product where the packaging kills you then it is illegal. But if you make one where it kills lots of people much later then you are fine? Your theory makes the EPA rather pointless.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    Something being legal at a given point in time doesn't make it an absolute truth. Look at slavery, torture, age of consent, I'm sure it all sounded very good to the guys in charge back in the days. In a few centuries people will look back at us and wonder why the fuck we were so stupid. I mean, just think about it for a single second, who profit from these things beside big corporations, certainly not me, you or our future descendants.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    Making false and misleading claims to consumers. The suit alleges Coke & Pepsi (and others) engaged in consumer-targeted campaigns to label their plastic packaging as "recyclable" even though they knew they were producing more plastic packaging than all of the recycling facilities in the US combined could have possibly processed.
    - LanceH 7y ago
      According to https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 , they would be in the clear as long as 60+% of users have access to recycling facilities/programs for these products. This is surely the case since nearly every municipality has some program in place. The obvious problem is that these cities aren't actually recycling things while claiming they are -- possibly even requiring people to recycle. It looks to me like cities need to be sued to remove these plastics from the programs. Then 60% wouldn't have access to recycling programs, and then it would be deceptive to label it as recyclable. Another avenue would be a change by legislation. For all the outrage, this lawsuit is going nowhere. And before I'm called a shill: Don't drink Coke. Don't drink Pepsi. Don't drink bottled water. I'm just a fan of the law being knowable -- oh, and articles having substance.
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        They aren't alleging a violation of FTC marketing guidelines, they're alleging a violation of California marketing guidance, which sets a higher (though still, as far as I can tell, optional) standard. Regardless, a company can still be culpable and held liable for wrongdoing even if they've dutifully followed "industry standards". I agree the lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere. But many people said the same about the lawsuits against big tobacco. And even if the lawsuit is tossed at the very first opportunity the organization has called attention to some of the worst actors when it comes to plastic production. I'd call that a win. Either way it's the way our system slowly but sure gets the wheels of progress spinning.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    No Dumping - the same laws that are broken if you toss a TV on the side of the road. That the stuff passes through intermediaries doesn't matter if you know its inevitable destination. Hustlers that stand on city corners pushing junk flyers onto passers-by, creating a pile of discards 20 feet down the street, are in the same boat.
    - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
      > Hustlers that stand on city corners pushing junk flyers onto passers-by, creating a pile of discards 20 feet down the street, are in the same boat. Paper degrades naturally, and most paper in the West is now produced from sustainable sources. So, paper littering is not as deleterious as plastic that doesn’t get properly recycled.
phjesusthatguy3 7y ago
1) Coke & Pepsi aren't being attacked; they're the names in the headline of TFA 2) There are five other companies named in TFA (of the ten named in the suit described in TFA)
sp332 7y ago
https://www.earthisland.org/images/uploads/suits/2020-02-26_Earth_Island_Complaint_FILED.PDF https://www.earthisland.org/images/uploads/suits/2020-02-26_... From the Table of Contents: A. Defendants created the condition of plastic pollution, which is extraordinarily harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. 22 B. As Defendants have known for decades, recycling by itself cannot prevent plastic pollution from damaging oceans, waterways, and coasts 29 C. Defendants refuse to adopt more sustainable alternatives in order reap higher profits resulting from using virgin plastic. 37 D. Defendants’ decades-long campaign of misinformation about their Products’ recyclability puts the cost of plastic pollution on consumers and public entities. 39
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  Geez, only claim D even makes conceptual sense to try in court. This suit is an awful idea.
  - redbeard0x0a 7y ago
    You gotta speak in the language that corporations understand. Lawsuits and regulations...
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Filing a nuisance lawsuit is certainly something people understand, but the only result you're going to get is that you get laughed out of court while everyone learns you're an idiot. There's a difference between (1) trying to speak to someone in a language they understand, and (2) imagining what you think that would be like, doing that without reference to whether it makes any sense, and then congratulating yourself for your penetrating insight. You can't speak to someone in a language that they understand but you don't!
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    While you may only be able to win on one count, you get discovery for all of them. The idea is good, if your goal is to legally investigate.
qeqeqeqe 7y ago
They have money so they are being sued.
oska 7y ago
Not strange at all. These are two highly toxic companies, in the same class as Philip Morris Tobacco. Everything they do is to maximise profit and to push all negative externalities (harmful effects on consumer health, environmental pollution & degradation) onto society. They should be prosecuted and regulated to the hilt until they are no longer generating such massive negative externalities (at which point they would either have reformed themselves or gone out of business).
nikanj 7y ago
This is similar to how Foxconn issues are always headlined "iPhone factory does XXXXXXX", despite iPhones making up just a minuscule faction of Foxconns total output

by lacker 7y ago

It seems very strange to attack Coke and Pepsi for this. Shouldn't the target be recycling programs that claim to be recycling plastic bottles, but actually don't?

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

If you knowingly produce single-use items that are neither biodegradable nor recyclable, you share culpability.

LanceH 7y ago
What law or contract? How were the labels wrong? There is nothing in this article and I'm sure your view of all single use products must be biodegradable or recyclable isn't law.
- wffurr 7y ago
  Moral culpability. It should be legal culpability as well, but we haven't written the law yet.
  - LanceH 7y ago
    This thread and the article are both about a lawsuit. Saying they should be culpable would imply legal culpability in this context, of which they have none.
    - ectospheno 7y ago
      If you make a product where the packaging kills you then it is illegal. But if you make one where it kills lots of people much later then you are fine? Your theory makes the EPA rather pointless.
- lm28469 7y ago
  Something being legal at a given point in time doesn't make it an absolute truth. Look at slavery, torture, age of consent, I'm sure it all sounded very good to the guys in charge back in the days. In a few centuries people will look back at us and wonder why the fuck we were so stupid. I mean, just think about it for a single second, who profit from these things beside big corporations, certainly not me, you or our future descendants.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  Making false and misleading claims to consumers. The suit alleges Coke & Pepsi (and others) engaged in consumer-targeted campaigns to label their plastic packaging as "recyclable" even though they knew they were producing more plastic packaging than all of the recycling facilities in the US combined could have possibly processed.
  - LanceH 7y ago
    According to https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 , they would be in the clear as long as 60+% of users have access to recycling facilities/programs for these products. This is surely the case since nearly every municipality has some program in place. The obvious problem is that these cities aren't actually recycling things while claiming they are -- possibly even requiring people to recycle. It looks to me like cities need to be sued to remove these plastics from the programs. Then 60% wouldn't have access to recycling programs, and then it would be deceptive to label it as recyclable. Another avenue would be a change by legislation. For all the outrage, this lawsuit is going nowhere. And before I'm called a shill: Don't drink Coke. Don't drink Pepsi. Don't drink bottled water. I'm just a fan of the law being knowable -- oh, and articles having substance.
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      They aren't alleging a violation of FTC marketing guidelines, they're alleging a violation of California marketing guidance, which sets a higher (though still, as far as I can tell, optional) standard. Regardless, a company can still be culpable and held liable for wrongdoing even if they've dutifully followed "industry standards". I agree the lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere. But many people said the same about the lawsuits against big tobacco. And even if the lawsuit is tossed at the very first opportunity the organization has called attention to some of the worst actors when it comes to plastic production. I'd call that a win. Either way it's the way our system slowly but sure gets the wheels of progress spinning.
- mindslight 7y ago
  No Dumping - the same laws that are broken if you toss a TV on the side of the road. That the stuff passes through intermediaries doesn't matter if you know its inevitable destination. Hustlers that stand on city corners pushing junk flyers onto passers-by, creating a pile of discards 20 feet down the street, are in the same boat.
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    > Hustlers that stand on city corners pushing junk flyers onto passers-by, creating a pile of discards 20 feet down the street, are in the same boat. Paper degrades naturally, and most paper in the West is now produced from sustainable sources. So, paper littering is not as deleterious as plastic that doesn’t get properly recycled.

phjesusthatguy3 7y ago

1) Coke & Pepsi aren't being attacked; they're the names in the headline of TFA 2) There are five other companies named in TFA (of the ten named in the suit described in TFA)

sp332 7y ago

https://www.earthisland.org/images/uploads/suits/2020-02-26_Earth_Island_Complaint_FILED.PDF https://www.earthisland.org/images/uploads/suits/2020-02-26_... From the Table of Contents: A. Defendants created the condition of plastic pollution, which is extraordinarily harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. 22 B. As Defendants have known for decades, recycling by itself cannot prevent plastic pollution from damaging oceans, waterways, and coasts 29 C. Defendants refuse to adopt more sustainable alternatives in order reap higher profits resulting from using virgin plastic. 37 D. Defendants’ decades-long campaign of misinformation about their Products’ recyclability puts the cost of plastic pollution on consumers and public entities. 39

thaumasiotes 7y ago
Geez, only claim D even makes conceptual sense to try in court. This suit is an awful idea.
- redbeard0x0a 7y ago
  You gotta speak in the language that corporations understand. Lawsuits and regulations...
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Filing a nuisance lawsuit is certainly something people understand, but the only result you're going to get is that you get laughed out of court while everyone learns you're an idiot. There's a difference between (1) trying to speak to someone in a language they understand, and (2) imagining what you think that would be like, doing that without reference to whether it makes any sense, and then congratulating yourself for your penetrating insight. You can't speak to someone in a language that they understand but you don't!
- Supermancho 7y ago
  While you may only be able to win on one count, you get discovery for all of them. The idea is good, if your goal is to legally investigate.

qeqeqeqe 7y ago

They have money so they are being sued.

oska 7y ago

Not strange at all. These are two highly toxic companies, in the same class as Philip Morris Tobacco. Everything they do is to maximise profit and to push all negative externalities (harmful effects on consumer health, environmental pollution & degradation) onto society. They should be prosecuted and regulated to the hilt until they are no longer generating such massive negative externalities (at which point they would either have reformed themselves or gone out of business).

nikanj 7y ago

This is similar to how Foxconn issues are always headlined "iPhone factory does XXXXXXX", despite iPhones making up just a minuscule faction of Foxconns total output