Popcorn Lung

I came across an article that stated a man was awarded nearly 8 million dollars in a lawsuit against a popcorn company.  The man from Denver sued because he had developed "popcorn lung".  Having never heard of this ailment, I turned to WebMD to find out that it is a chronic, obstructive lung disease that limits the lung's ability to release air.  This is supposedly caused by diacetyl, that yellow powder stuff in the microwavable popcorn, the chemical that gives it "butter flavor".  The man that was awarded the money in the case claimed that he had a bag of popcorn everyday, and would inhale the fumes because he loved the smell of it.  The prosecutor said that the popcorn should have been properly labelled to let consumers know that there was a risk.  It is also important to note that the man that developed the lung disease was a carpet cleaner for over thirty years and was constantly in contact with chemicals that are known to be dangerous.


After looking in to the issue further, turns out that there have been dozens of cases of workers in popcorn factories developing lung issues, and the same ingredient responsible, diacetyl, can also lead to Alzheimer's.  Taken from http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20120808/popcorn-butter-flavorant-linked-to-alzheimers: 


"In laboratory experiments, Vince's team showed that at very low concentrations, diacetyl:

• Causes misfolding of amyloid into toxic beta amyloid.

• Easily crosses the blood-brain barrier that keeps many toxins from entering the brain.

• Inhibits natural mechanisms that clear beta amyloid from the brain."

Sounds pretty scary for a treat that people have been enjoying for years and is thought to be a relatively healthy snack food.  However, when looking at the FDA website, they regard it as "generally safe for human consumption" and have gone on the record many times saying that it is nothing to worry about. 


This all forces me to think, at what point must something be classified as "dangerous" or require special labeling?  How many diseases must be linked to an ingredient, before it is not allowed to be sold?  Or is this simply a case of a bad legal settlement and the risks are overstated?  I tend to believe the latter, but with corn being such a powerful crop in the US, who knows how much lobbying power corn producers have over the FDA.  Even so, there have only been several cases in history of somebody developing "popcorn lung" after just consuming it and the link between the two has been all but clear.  If the courts say that popcorn should carry a warning label because of a few isolated cases, why doesn't all candy carry a warning label for diabetes?  Why doesn't fried food come with a warning that if you eat tons of it, you may develop heart disease?  Should organic vegetables have to be labelled because there is a small chance that if you eat them everyday, at some point you will get e.coli?  Where does it stop?