[kingu]

Yes it would, because it would have helped protect the manufacturer from potential liability. This guy may have ignored the warning and gotten the disease anyway, but he couldn’t have claimed that the manufacturer was aware of the risk and concealing it from the consumer.

More text simply to protect a company from the courts, not to protect the consumer... Yeah, that's making regulations that make sense... WARNING: Hot Coffee is hot!

[Boogieman]

“More text simply to protect a company from the courts, not to protect the consumer.”

No, it protects both the company and the consumer. The consumer may choose to ignore it, but then they are just assuming the risk that they are now aware of. It doesn’t mean the warning doesn’t serve a purpose for the consumer.

[Boogieman]

Also... “WARNING: Hot Coffee is hot!”

is a ridiculous comparison. Hot coffee being hot is an obvious fact that shouldn’t require any warning, since it is common knowledge. Diacetyl used in artificial butter causing lung disease due to repeated exposure is certainly not common knowledge.