If this had been somebody suing over a strawberry allergy when they ate a strawberry shortcake, they would simply be laughed out of court, right?  I see this as no difference.  Also, I have to take issue with Consumerist trying to characterize it as some sort of mad science experiment being foisted on an unknowing public; just because Quorn is “grown in a vat” doesn’t make it any more evil than any other cultivated product, and just because it’s a fungus doesn’t make it worse than mushrooms (which are also a fungus).

Maybe we could solve this by requiring that every food, everywhere, have a label on it saying “WARNING: may cause allergies” and “WARNING: food comes from places that aren’t the grocery store.”

While on the surface I don’t have a problem with the tax in general, I really would prefer if they didn’t have an exemption for diet sodas. Diet sodas aren’t inherently any healthier than non-diet ones; while they are non-caloric, they apparently still cause the same insulin response as sugar sodas, and it’s that which leads to weight gain and health problems.

In addition, the inclusion of “sports drinks” is rather puzzling. Sports drinks are generally used in conjunction with healthy activities, and they actually help people to perform those activities better even when spat out. Okay, so people could get around the tax by drinking Gatorade instead of Coke, but Gatorade also doesn’t have the addictive properties that Coke has (generally it doesn’t even taste that good unless you need the hydration, unlike Coke which is formulated specifically to make you crave more).

• Climbing Mount Everest
• Reaching the South pole
• Flying across the Atlantic unaccompanied
• Eating a 15-pound hamburger