The comparison is interesting. There is one critical difference. The tobacco industry new just how addictive and lethal their product was and denied it, actually making ads suggestingi t was a healthy product. The manufacturer of this raw milk product had honestly labelled it with a warning.
Aside from the present, my understanding is that scientists knew in the 40s and 50s that cigarettes caused lung cancer and that tobacco companies essentially ran a propaganda campaign. I think that’s a lot like how alt right health works right now.
Exactly. And they'll have a few liability waivers, but they are usually crafted to play on existing prejudices, e.g. adding "Health claims have not been verified by the FDA" while buying tons of ad spots on a podcast that propagates conspiracy theories about the FDA.
I know I am biased by my personal experience. My dad had a high school education. He smoked 2 ppd of Marlboros/day & didn’t see the harm until he died of bladder CA when I was nine. Now it was Oxycodone. They knew & didn’t care & we inherited the opioid epidemic. You are right.
I'm so sorry about your father.
Smile. Thank you. It has been a very long time. I was nine then. I am 73 now. My circumstances at the time were an integral part of who I became.
I'm talking about the present, where tobacco companies use comparable labels, not the past.
Ok. But we have another much more recent example in the Sackler’s marketing of Oxycodone. They lied to MDs & patients about its less addictive properties & we are still paying with the opioid epidemic. The product changes, the marketing strategy remains.