Paqui, the maker of extremely spicy tortilla chips marketed as the “One Chip Challenge,” is voluntarily pulling the product from shelves after a woman said her teenage son died of complications from consuming a single chip.
The chips were sold individually, and their seasoning included two of the hottest peppers in the world: the Carolina Reaper and the Naga Viper.
Each chip was packaged in a coffin-shaped container with a skull on the front.
Lois Wolobah told NBC Boston that her 14-year-old son, Harris Wolobah, ate the chip Friday, then went to the school nurse with a stomachache. Wolobah said Harris — a sophomore at Doherty Memorial High School in Worcester, Massachusetts — passed out at home that afternoon. He was pronounced dead at the hospital later that day, she said.
Until sales of the product were suspended, Paqui’s marketing dared people to participate in the challenge by eating a chip, posting pictures of their tongues on social media after the chip turned it blue and then waiting as long as possible to relieve the burn with water or other food.
The challenge has existed in some form since 2016.
It’s littered with warnings, at what point is it the consumers fault?
Just because it’s the consumer’s fault doesn’t mean a hot chip that can send you to the hospital should be on store shelves lol
I don’t think the mom has any right to sue, though
Why doesn’t the mom have any right to sue? That’s kind of how the American legal system works.
Because a parent can’t sue when their kid with peanut allergies eats a bag of candy that says WARNING: CONTAINS PEANUTS and dies. There’s lots of warning labels on the chip container
This is just my opinion, I’m not a lawyer
I think the difference is that this is a fairly unknown risk, whereas allergies are known, diagnosed, and we have labeling requirements (in the US, at least) to protect people from accidentally ingesting an allergen. With an unknown ingredient like this, IMO the onus is on the company selling it to make sure it’s safe. This isn’t necessarily an allergic response that kids are having. It sounds like something else entirely.
Should alcohol be illegal for everyone because it harms children? That’s the case you are basically making.
That’s the example you want to give in support of your argument that this chip should be within reach of kids? A highly-regulated product that can only be purchased by adults?
And where did I say it should be illegal? I said it doesn’t need to be on shelves and even implied they did nothing wrong legally (the mom shouldn’t be able to sue)
What exactly are you defending here?
Literally any food can send you to the hospital. Taking it off of shelves because one person had a reaction is an overreaction.
I don’t get why you think this is such a pearl clutching opinion when you yourself compared it to alcohol. I guess I just don’t understand what stance you’re taking. Do YOU think minors should be able to buy booze?
No, I think adults should be able to buy booze and children shouldn’t. We should not have to modify the options available to adults to suit children. Your logic is that no R rated movies should exist because they are not suitable for one section of society (children). When I point the absurdity of that logic out, you accuse me of wanting children to be able to drink alcohol (???). My logic is that it’s stupid to ban something for everyone because one person had a reaction.
I think you misinterpreted my point, that is…not the I used at all. I never once claimed that any of those things - chip included - should be outright banned.
YOU drew the comparison to alcohol, I was applying YOUR logic for chip accessibility (lol sounds like we’re talking tech) to it.
Now you’ve added R rated movies so…where they check for ID and don’t let unaccompanied kids in. You’ve been arguing my point the whole time…that maybe there are things kids shouldn’t be able to buy for themselves…
You said it shouldn’t be on shelves, what do you think that means???
Yes.
Ok Mormon…
I’m not religious, I just see the black and white statistics that alcohol does far more harm than good, for anyone.
Yes, but we tried banning it. It didn’t work. What we need to do is legalize other drugs rather than throw more people in prison.
I’ve probably repeated that before myself, but thinking about it now? There’s no way speakeasies would last more than a month in this modern age before being busted, the police also wouldn’t be dealing with a more well armed gang than themselves when trying to shut down illegal distribution like they were when going up against the mob during prohibition. I think it would work a lot better now. Would it erase ALL alcohol from the country? Of course not, but it would make a considerable difference. Same with guns, banning them might not make them all disappear over night, but it’s going to make a big difference in the long run. All just thought experiments anyways since republicans would never give anything like that a chance.
I just don’t see the point of putting even more people in our prisons. We have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and the Constitution makes slavery legal for the incarcerated.
Agreed. Science is clear. World would be better and healthier without it.
When you’re dealing with a child it’s never their fault. Kids do stupid shit.