True, but it would be similar to the tobacco cases from the 60's. Plus, they would be subjected to "reasonable person" standards in front of juries, so feigning ignorance would only get them so far, especially since civil courts have much lower burdens of proof than criminal.

Undisciplined

The catch here is the word "known". It would be easy enough for companies to trot out an army of scientists to give them plausible deniability as to their knowledge of any health risks 

SimpleStacker

Politics_And_Law

Surgeon General calls for new label on drinks to warn Americans of cancer risk

IamSINGLE

It doesn't need to be forced by government. We just need companies to be subject to liability when their products cause known, but undisclosed, harms to consumers.

They'll slap a warning on their own products, if it means not getting sued for billions of dollars.