• ieatpwns@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nah it’s a fire retardant so you’ll be fine if anything you can use your soda to put out fires

  • NABDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ok, without reading the article, let me see if I can guess what it says.

    The population of the US exists to serve the needs of the 1% and no threat to the population matters unless the damage impacts their profits.

    Am I close?

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Worse: basically the rest of the world already banned it and a lot of other toxic stuff that is in our food.

      • NABDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think my guess includes that by default. Unless the toxic stuff in our food is costing the 1% money, in which case it would be odd that they permit it.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        And the US food companies have known this was coming for a loooong time. The biggest names already changed ahead of time.

          • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            not really. generics did. mountain dew is the most well known because its the only citrus soda with such a high profile. It basically was a big thing for stabilizing citrus based ones.

  • Don_Dickle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Um so when I grab a mountain dew at the store I am consuming a flame retardants? So does that mean I can douse myself in soda and run into a burning building?