Pepsi has sued an Indian farmer for $50 million over damage to one of his crops. The Indian farmer claims that Pepsi’s use of chlorination — which removes chlorine from water before it is used to water plants — is “unlawful” under Indian law.
Pepsi is a big company in India, and it’s not like someone is putting poison in our water. The Indian government has a lot of other things to worry about.
Well, Pepsi is not the only company in India with a legal case. The Indian government has a few to worry about as well, such as the Kolkata metro’s decision to stop using plastic bottles. This is because it’s just not cost effective to use the plastic ones anymore. While plastic bottles are cheaper to produce, they have less shelf life and are just not very convenient to use.
Well, that is not the only reason for this. You see, the government claims that the plastic bottles cause pollution. And now they’re suing Pepsi for that, which is pretty hilarious because it’s a pretty common belief that plastic causes cancer. But, wait! Its not true. Pepsi has actually done a study showing that plastic bottles are actually a healthier alternative than their glass counterparts.
The government is basically claiming that Pepsi doesnt produce enough plastic bottles, and that their bottle is actually worse for the environment than their glass bottles. What they dont get is that their glass bottles are made of wood, and that they take a lot of plastic out of them since theyre so expensive and youll have to recycle.
Pepsi has a strong history of being a force for good in the world, and the fact that their glass bottles are made of recycled timber is pretty much a testament to that. And now they’re getting sued for making a better product. Pepsi claims that the company is creating the wrong kind of plastic based on the fact that its better for the environment.
This is a pretty ridiculous lawsuit. The plastic that Pepsi is claiming is bad actually is what is good for the environment. They are claiming that they’re making plastic with less plastic in it, which has the same effect. In fact, the entire lawsuit seems to be about how the plastic is going to make its way into our water supply… which is pretty ridiculous, since it also is affecting our water supplies in other ways.
In most of the lawsuits that I’ve read, the plaintiff is making a claim related to the plastic in their products, and the defendant is claiming that their product is somehow “tainted” by the plastic. The bottom line is that plastic is bad for us, and so it is the plaintiff’s job to prove it. The trouble is that the companies that make the plastic are not really interested in helping the environment.
The lawsuits have been filed by PepsiCo (the company that made Coke and Pepsi machines that are made out of plastic) against the farmers who produce the plastic. Apparently because of the plastic, farmers can no longer grow enough crops to sell to PepsiCo, which has a monopoly on its product. PepsiCo wants to force farmers to grow crops that are grown on plastic, or else they will have to start growing crops that are grown in dirt.
PepsiCo wants to force farmers to use plastic when they have the option to grow crops that are grown in dirt. Since plastic is made from polystyrene, you can see that PepsiCo is attempting to use the same standard to compare to an entire class of plastic products.