meds2010

some would call sugar a scandal, probably with valid reasoning too:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sugar-harvard-scandal-nutriti...

And they both clearly involve outright deception. The difference is probably just not as many babies dying. At least not yet, cokes aren't advertised as being healthier than breastfeeding for babies.

It depends on how innocent you think Nestle is. I can understand why someone would conclude that there is some "messing with the truthfulness" going on at Nestle. Both in the product design, and the marketing. It's why a lot of people call it a "scandal." I think this is less about laws for people who compare the two and more about morals. In one you have dozens dead, in the other, the claim is that millions died. Both are about corporations and profit and gaming the system and manipulating consumers, so in that sense, I think it's easy to make the case that they are extremely similar.

I can see a product designer make the case that if millions are dying, then the product is defective in some way. The rules are different in two different places, but I can see how someone thinks these two cases are similar, both are about corporate greed, and the victims are just statistics. Is it murder if there is something wrong with the product, and you don't pull it? Many people out there believe that it is:

https://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/5379/2015-09-18/gm-pay...

the numbers are definitely worse. "millions" dead? that sounds pretty bad. Not sure how true that is. It certainly isn't clear. But the idea that a western corporation will do something like changing a product to save money, or not recalling a product knowing that someone out there will die... do you really need to be given examples of that?

like any drug deal, you should test the product. not exactly a cultural difference here.

this whole thing even sounds like dallas buyers club.