1. Introduction

A recent class action complaint filed in California has sent shockwaves through the consumer advocacy community, raising urgent questions about corporate social responsibility, regulatory oversight, and the corporation’s dangers to public health. At the center of this legal firestorm is The Hershey Company, one of the world’s largest confectionery manufacturers, and its popular Bubble Yum Original Flavor Bubble Gum. According to the complaint, independent laboratory tests revealed that this gum—frequently marketed toward children and sold under Hershey’s “Bubble Yum” brand—allegedly contained organic fluorine at levels indicating the potential presence of PFAS (“per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances”), often referred to as “forever chemicals.” Even the gum’s wrapper reportedly tested above California’s permissible manufacturing limits for PFAS, as measured in total organic fluorine. PFAS are notoriously persistent pollutants linked to an array of serious health concerns, including cancer, thyroid disease, and developmental harm.

You might have heard of PFAS before under their unofficial name, “forever chemicals”. On account of them lasting… well….. forever >.<

More damning still are the claims of misrepresentation and omission on Hershey’s part. While the company actively markets its products under a sustainability banner—pledging “high quality,” “transparency,” and “integrity”—the complaint’s core allegations suggest Hershey may have knowingly or negligently sold Bubble Yum gum containing PFAS without disclosing the potential risks. These allegations, if true, expose a corporate strategy that prioritizes profit maximization at the expense of consumer and environmental well-being.

At the heart of the lawsuit are three central issues:

1. The alleged violation of California Health & Safety Code regarding PFAS levels (100 ppm total organic fluorine or above) in both the gum itself and its wrapper.
2. The alleged omissions and non-disclosures of a material fact—that the gum may contain substances potentially harmful to the health of consumers, especially children.
3. The false or misleading marketing of the Hershey family of brands as “high quality,” “sustainable,” and “transparent about ingredients,” despite the purported health risks uncovered by testing.

This investigative article will delve into these allegations and expand the conversation to illuminate broader systemic issues under neoliberal capitalism—such as deregulation, regulatory capture, and corporate profit-driven motives that often supersede public health considerations. In exploring how purported loopholes and insufficient regulations might enable companies to sidestep accountability, we also confront the bigger question: Are these alleged practices anomalies, or do they represent a deeper, more ominous pattern woven into the fabric of late-stage capitalism?

We begin with the complaint’s key findings—the “smoking gun,” if you will—that has triggered public outcry, then explore how these findings fit into a century-long narrative of corporate strategies designed to obfuscate, downplay, or outright deny harmful effects. The broader argument is twofold: first, that the alleged wrongdoing is not merely the misstep of one wayward actor, but rather an outgrowth of a system that facilitates such behavior; and second, that change can only come if consumers, workers, and communities unite to demand strict enforcement and meaningful reform.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

2.1 The Key Facts

The class action complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, is remarkably detailed, providing thorough legal and factual allegations surrounding Hershey’s Bubble Yum. The heart of the lawsuit lies in two rounds of independent laboratory testing of Bubble Yum Original Flavor Bubble Gum. These tests looked for organic fluorine, widely recognized as a proxy measure for the total PFAS content (whether that be PFOS, PFOA, or other derivatives in the PFAS family).

• Round One: Testing reportedly found 130 ppm (parts per million) of organic fluorine in the gum’s wrapper and 197 ppm in the gum itself.
• Round Two: Subsequent tests revealed 122 ppm in the wrapper and 75.19 ppm in the gum.

According to California law, PFAS levels in food packaging or juvenile products that reach or exceed 100 ppm violate recent statutes (Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 108945(b)(2) and 109000(a)(3)(B)). Notably, Bubble Yum is associated with children, raising a red flag that it may also fall under the broader category of “juvenile products.” The complaint claims that manufacturing or selling items above this threshold is not allowed and further contends that Hershey’s wrappers and gum exceed the permissible limits.

Scientific and regulatory bodies have linked PFAS to cancers, immune system compromise, increased risk of asthma, thyroid disease, and other serious health concerns. The complaint underscores that for children—habitual gum-chewers—exposure risks are especially concerning, and the labeling or marketing materials do not disclose these potential risks.

2.2 Misdirections and Omissions

Beyond the mere presence of PFAS, the complaint zeroes in on marketing claims that convey a sense of moral stewardship and environmental integrity. On The Hershey Company’s websites, consumers frequently encounter terms like:

• “Highest quality, safety and sustainability standards”
• “Committed to . . . being transparent about the ingredients in your favorite Hershey products”
• “Doing good by the Earth is not only doing the right thing—it’s good business”

These statements, the lawsuit alleges, are contradicted by the revelations about organic fluorine levels. Hershey is accused of omitting or failing to disclose material facts to consumers: specifically, that Bubble Yum gum and its wrapper might contain “forever chemicals” exceeding state guidelines. Because PFAS accumulation poses a serious risk to both individual health and broader ecological systems, the complaint argues that this omission is inherently deceptive and misleading.

2.3 Why This Matters

By targeting a confection marketed mainly to children, this lawsuit cuts to the core of public health concerns. Parents who assume that well-known brands are heavily regulated may never suspect that their children could be exposed to industrial chemicals while blowing bubbles. The complaint implies that these children and their parents have become unwitting participants in a complex industrial toxicology experiment.

From a legal perspective, the case underscores the interplay between state consumer protection statutes—like those under the California Health & Safety Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act—and broader ethical standards that a global brand like Hershey purports to uphold. The combination of explicit marketing statements about sustainability and the alleged presence of harmful PFAS sets the stage for a potential battle over what corporations can—and cannot—promise the public under the guise of “corporate social responsibility.”

---

3. The Corporations Get Away With It

3.1 Loopholes and Regulatory Gaps

Despite a flurry of new state laws targeting PFAS, critics argue that corporate accountability is still undermined by what amounts to patchwork legislation, insufficient enforcement, and widespread regulatory capture. In the U.S., the approach to PFAS regulation has historically been reactive, often requiring herculean effort by health advocates and communities to push any meaningful oversight.

• Patchwork of Standards: Different states maintain different thresholds for PFAS in products. California’s newly minted guidelines (capping total organic fluorine at 100 ppm) represent a step forward in PFAS regulation, but other states have far more lenient or nonexistent caps. Companies typically can adjust or shift strategies to exploit laxer jurisdictions.
• Regulatory Capture: Many critics point to a revolving door between government agencies and the industries they regulate. Over time, regulators can become co-opted by the same corporate interests they are supposed to oversee. This phenomenon fosters an environment where profit-driven decision-making can overshadow public health imperatives.

3.2 Lack of Meaningful Disclosure

Hershey omitted material facts about PFAS from the product packaging and marketing. Legally, if a product carries known risks, especially for children, the manufacturer arguably should warn consumers under certain state laws. But the complaint claims that Hershey’s marketing not only lacked a warning—it actively asserted claims of environmental stewardship and “transparency.”

This tension between brand image and alleged reality is particularly potent because of the role of greenwashing. Greenwashing refers to a corporation’s exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims of sustainability to gain consumer trust. Here, the plaintiff contends that Hershey’s emphasis on “highest quality,” “sustainable packaging,” and “no deforestation policies” sets up an expectation of rigorous attention to environmental toxins—a standard the complaint alleges Hershey has failed to meet when it comes to PFAS in Bubble Yum.

3.3 Historical Precedent

Over the past few decades, a string of major corporate scandals has shown that omission can be as damaging as outright deception. From Big Tobacco’s hidden memos on nicotine addiction to oil companies’ suppressed research on climate change, corporations have long leveraged loopholes in disclosure requirements to protect sales and stave off lawsuits. The complaint essentially accuses Hershey of using a similar strategy—allowing consumers to assume “everything’s fine,” while quietly continuing business as usual.

---

4. The Cost of Doing Business

4.1 The Financial Stakes

The Hershey Company, known worldwide for its chocolate bars, Kisses, and other sweet treats, generates billions of dollars in annual revenue. Bubble Yum, while possibly just a fraction of its overall portfolio, is still a recognizable brand with a loyal consumer base. Critics say that with such deep pockets and strong brand equity, Hershey could easily afford more rigorous chemical testing and safer production methods. But the complaint posits a more jarring question: Is it cheaper and more profitable to risk lawsuits than to revamp supply chains?

This is where the concept of PFAS as “the cost of doing business” becomes relevant. If a corporation invests millions to reformulate, redesign, or ensure that packaging is free of PFAS, it might raise manufacturing costs and thus reduce short-term profits. Under a system driven by shareholder returns, cutting corners can seem appealing to executives working under quarterly earnings pressures—especially if they believe the likelihood of detection or government enforcement is minimal.

4.2 Profits vs. Precaution

Economic scholars examining neoliberal capitalism often highlight how deregulated markets can incentivize risk-taking in ways that undermine public safety. In this worldview, regulatory fines and the occasional settlement are seen as “externalities”—an acceptable if unfortunate side effect of an aggressive push for revenue growth. If the potential penalty is smaller than the cost of overhauling supply chains, some companies may find it more “efficient” to risk litigation.

Such a calculation can also involve PR and reputation management. Indeed, if the brand image can be preserved through strategic marketing, damage-control statements, and philanthropic initiatives, the immediate benefits of continuing current practices may overshadow the long-tail costs of consumer lawsuits.

4.3 Economic Fallout Beyond the Company

The complaint does not just highlight Hershey’s alleged cost calculus; it also paints a broader picture of economic fallout for everyday consumers. When consumers purchase goods they believe to be safe—only to discover potential toxins—they incur hidden medical or social costs. Should the PFAS link be proved, society may face additional healthcare burdens, environmental cleanup, and potential ramifications for children’s well-being.

In many corporate misconduct cases, the final “bill” is footed not by the corporation, but by local communities and families. From a purely economic standpoint, this situation sets up a moral hazard where corporations benefit from the gains while the negative externalities—health crises, cleanup costs, diminished consumer trust—are offloaded onto the broader public.

---

5. Systemic Failures

5.1 Neoliberal Capitalism and Deregulation

The corporate misconduct laid out in the complaint can be interpreted as a microcosm of structural problems inherent in neoliberal capitalism. Since the late 20th century, many Western economies have pivoted toward free-market policies, favoring corporate autonomy and minimal state intervention. While this can spur innovation, critics argue that it often leaves the public vulnerable to regulatory loopholes and “light-touch” enforcement regimes.

PFAS regulation is a prime example. Although scientists have raised alarms about PFAS for decades, legislative and regulatory bodies have moved slowly—often impeded by industry lobbyists, underfunded agencies, and an economic philosophy that values profit and private enterprise as primary drivers of societal progress.

5.2 The Role of Regulatory Capture

Regulatory capture occurs when state agencies are dominated or heavily influenced by the industries they oversee. This dynamic can lead to watered-down rules and a lack of meaningful enforcement. When there is a revolving door between the chemical or packaging industries and the government officials who write or enforce the laws, the result can be a system in which corporate actors either set the terms of regulation or face minimal scrutiny.

In the context of PFAS, a complicated web of global chemical manufacturers, food-processing interests, and packaging suppliers has historically obscured who should be held accountable for these chemicals seeping into consumer goods. Companies can claim ignorance (“We didn’t know the wrapper had PFAS”), or shift blame to upstream suppliers. Meanwhile, regulators often lack the resources to do comprehensive checks, especially if the same corporate players are leading advisory panels.

5.3 Profit-Maximization Outweighing Public Health

No matter how carefully a corporation’s marketing might talk about corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, or sustainability, the fundamental impetus under late-stage capitalism often remains unwavering: maximize shareholder value at all costs. The complaint about Bubble Yum packaging containing PFAS underscores how invisible this dynamic can be for everyday consumers. On the grocery store shelf, a brand can appear squeaky clean—especially when accompanied by philanthropic gestures or “feel-good” sustainability rhetoric.

Internally, however, cost-benefit analyses may weigh product reformulation or more expensive packaging components against the short-run margin improvement. When profit overshadows precaution, it can create tragedies of the commons—where the environment, public health, and eventually even the trust in markets begin to erode.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

6.1 Recurring Themes of Corporate Greed

Questionable business practices—like hiding PFAS content—are not one-off incidents, but rather consistent with a pattern repeatedly seen in various industries. In a historical sense, the alleged decision by Hershey to not disclose the PFAS presence (and to continue marketing Bubble Yum as safe and sustainable) mirrors tactics used by large conglomerates in the face of damaging revelations.

In each scenario, corporations have withheld crucial information, deployed targeted PR campaigns, lobbied regulators, or settled lawsuits quietly to maintain the status quo. This pattern underscores the notion that in an economy prioritizing short-term returns, corporate greed can become a structural phenomenon—a feature of the system, not an aberration.

6.2 Corporate Corruption and Wealth Disparity

If proven, the allegations in the lawsuit highlight how corporations can amass wealth while perpetuating harmful externalities onto less powerful groups—children, low-income communities, or unsuspecting consumers. These vulnerable groups often have less ability to defend themselves in the legal system or the political arena.

As wealth disparity grows, large corporations often have the resources to endure negative publicity, legal challenges, and even regulatory fines. They can pay out settlements that look staggering to individuals yet pale in comparison to their total annual profits. Meanwhile, those who are harmed by a potentially toxic product lack resources for expensive legal battles or long-term medical monitoring. This dynamic exposes a deeper injustice: corporations can endanger public health and walk away with minimal disruption to their bottom line.

6.3 The Harsh Reality of Corporate Pollution

An added dimension of PFAS is environmental persistence—the chemicals do not merely disappear. Once PFAS is manufactured and enters the marketplace, it migrates into water supplies, the food chain, and even human bloodstreams. The entire planet potentially becomes a dumping ground for synthetic chemicals that degrade slowly, if at all.

By the time lawsuits catch up, or by the time scientists amass conclusive data on the severity of health risks, the damage is often already done. Generations of people could already be exposed to these substances, facing uncertain long-term health consequences. This underscores a fundamental tension between corporate profit-maximization strategies and the principle of ecological stewardship.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

7.1 Typical Corporate Strategies

When faced with allegations of serious misconduct, companies often mobilize well-rehearsed PR strategies that revolve around damage control. These tactics can include:

1. Denial or Downplaying: Official statements that minimize the severity of the findings, sometimes suggesting that levels of the harmful substance are within “safe” limits or are “isolated incidents.”
2. Reassurance: Publicizing internal investigations, audits, or “task forces” aimed at “evaluating the safety and integrity of the product.”
3. Distraction: Shifting focus to philanthropic achievements, new sustainability initiatives, or unrelated product announcements, overshadowing the original controversy.
4. Limited Recalls: If forced to take action, corporations might issue narrowly scoped product recalls, accompanied by a vow to “improve procedures.”

7.2 Specific Relevance to Hershey

Hershey’s websites and marketing channels present a robust narrative of sustainability and social good. The brand’s promise of “shared goodness” extends to lofty ideals about protecting youth, advancing environmental stewardship, and delivering high-quality products. In the face of PFAS allegations, one might speculate that Hershey would lean heavily on this positive brand image to quell public alarm.

While the lawsuit does not explicitly mention Hershey’s official reaction to the test findings, the company’s standard approach—as gleaned from the brand’s broader public relations style—would likely emphasize thorough internal reviews, adherence to “all applicable laws,” and possible statements that “the safety and quality of our products is our top priority.”

7.3 Greenwashing or Genuine CSR?

If the claims in the class action hold up, it raises a pointed question about Hershey’s repeated references to “doing well by doing good.” Is that aspirational language actually a smokescreen? The process of greenwashing can be subtle: corporations adopt the aesthetics of sustainability—upbeat messaging, philanthropic campaigns, carefully curated images of farmland and smiling children—while not taking the corresponding operational steps to ensure their products are free of harmful substances.

The possibility that the wrapper and gum might contain PFAS severely undercuts the sincerity of marketing claims about “protecting the environment” or “supporting consumer’s right to know what’s in their food.” For many critics, this dissonance is precisely the hallmark of greenwashing—bold rhetoric overshadowing contradictory on-the-ground realities.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

8.1 The Tension Between Shareholder Demands and Ethical Duties

Under neoliberal capitalism, a public corporation’s foremost legal duty is to its shareholders, typically expressed as a drive to increase stock prices and expand market share. This structural imperative often conflicts with the social and ethical responsibility to ensure a product does not harm consumers or degrade the environment. Hershey’s alleged non-disclosure of PFAS in Bubble Yum—if proven—epitomizes this conflict.

The public expects large, well-resourced corporations to abide by a social contract: they profit by selling goods and, in exchange, they owe the public at least some baseline standard of safety and transparency. Yet, from the vantage point of purely maximizing profit, there is a constant pressure to privatize gains and socialize risks—i.e., pass the costs of potential health hazards onto consumers while reaping the rewards of brand loyalty and sales.

8.2 Weak Checks and Balances

Even in the presence of consumer protection laws, enforcement can be slow-moving, and corporate legal teams are adept at diluting or stalling the process. When large-scale corporations control significant capital, they can aggressively push back against lawsuits, maintain that “the science is inconclusive,” and finance robust marketing campaigns. Meanwhile, everyday consumers—especially the low-income families often reliant on cheaper or heavily advertised products—face limited recourse.

Consumer advocacy groups can help offset this disparity to some extent, but they often struggle with resource constraints. Government regulators, for their part, face shifting political winds—agency budgets can be slashed, or new appointments may prioritize industry-friendly policies. In this environment, the public interest can be overshadowed by corporate power.

8.3 Public Health Implications

At its core, the tension between corporate power and public interest in this scenario is a public health issue. PFAS have been studied for their potential to disrupt endocrine systems, raise cancer risks, and persist in the human body. If indeed Hershey’s Bubble Yum gum contains these substances, then a direct link to children’s daily chewing habits emerges, magnifying the potential harm.

Long-term exposure to PFAS is especially concerning because children are in critical developmental phases, and repeated exposure could have lifelong implications. If corporations prioritize share value over precautionary measures, the entire society might bear the burden of elevated healthcare costs, lost productivity, and intangible harms like reduced trust in consumer brands.

---

9. The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

9.1 Worker Safety Concerns

Although the complaint primarily addresses the risk to end consumers, PFAS also raises alarms for workers involved in manufacturing, packaging, and distributing these products. If PFAS-containing materials are used, employees might face elevated risks of direct exposure—potentially inhaling or coming into contact with residue on manufacturing lines.

Factories that manufacture or handle PFAS-laden materials can also become local hotspots for corporate pollution. Nearby communities may experience higher PFAS concentrations in water supplies and soils—events we have seen historically in locations surrounding industrial plants for Teflon, firefighting foam, and other PFAS-based products. While the Bubble Yum case does not allege direct environmental discharge from Hershey facilities, the presence of PFAS in product wrappers is still a concern—especially given that Hershey’s Bubble Yum is manufactured in Mexico (per the brand’s own FAQ) and thus subject to potentially laxer oversight or limited enforcement.

9.2 Local Community Impacts

When a high-profile lawsuit reveals potential chemical contamination, local communities often experience a ripple effect:

• Economic Strain: If families become worried about product safety, local stores might see dips in sales. Local healthcare systems could face an uptick in PFAS-related inquiries or health complaints if the contamination extends beyond wrappers (e.g., if it correlates with water pollution).
• Public Distrust: Legal battles attract media coverage, which can erode trust in not just the offending brand but also in regulators or other local institutions.
• Social Injustice: If the product is disproportionately consumed by specific demographics—for instance, lower-income families drawn to promotional deals or children targeted by marketing campaigns—then health burdens might exacerbate existing wealth disparity.

9.3 The Emotional Ties to a Trusted Brand

Hershey, with a storied legacy in American confectionery, evokes nostalgia and emotional attachment. Many families trust the brand implicitly. If these allegations gain wider traction, consumers may feel not just disappointed, but betrayed. That sense of betrayal can be emotionally distressing, especially for parents who believed they were buying safe treats for their children.

Historically, once a brand loses consumer confidence over health and safety concerns—think of high-profile cases involving lead in paint or melamine in infant formula—it can take years, if ever, to fully restore trust. In a market shaped by intense competition, negative publicity can trigger a chain reaction that resonates far beyond a single product line.

---

10. Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

10.1 The Worldwide PFAS Crisis

PFAS contamination is not limited to the United States. In Europe, the regulation is sometimes stricter, with the European Chemicals Agency evaluating the possibility of broad PFAS bans. Scandinavian countries have taken a harder stance against non-essential PFAS use. Meanwhile, developing countries may have less stringent frameworks, making them potential dumping grounds for PFAS-laden products.

Given that Hershey’s Bubble Yum is manufactured in Mexico, the allegations highlight the global dimension of supply chains. The same product can traverse multiple regulatory environments, none of which might thoroughly test for PFAS or hold manufacturers accountable for labeling omissions.

10.2 Class Action Lawsuits as a Mechanism of Change

In the absence of robust, uniform global regulations, class action lawsuits like the Bubble Yum case can become a major vehicle for corporate accountability. By consolidating consumer grievances, these suits create a collective voice loud enough to challenge deep-pocketed corporations. Historical examples—such as litigation against tobacco companies or automakers with defective airbags—show that class actions can influence corporate behavior by forcing companies to either pay substantial settlements or change manufacturing processes.

The success of such lawsuits, however, is not guaranteed. Corporations often settle without admitting wrongdoing, which can allow them to continue questionable practices if the settlement terms are not strictly enforced. Class actions remain a double-edged sword—capable of restitution but also prone to lengthy legal wrangling and settlements that may not fundamentally alter corporate behavior.

10.3 Moves Toward Sustainability and Transparency

Despite the skepticism surrounding greenwashing, consumer demand for genuinely sustainable products is rising worldwide. Many consumers are beginning to look past mere marketing slogans, demanding third-party certifications or verifiable data on product safety. Nonprofit watchdogs and NGOs are stepping in to investigate supply chains independently, measuring levels of toxic chemicals in everyday products and publicizing results online.

If Hershey truly wishes to reclaim consumer trust in a climate of growing PFAS awareness, they may need to adopt more transparent testing protocols and wholeheartedly commit to removing PFAS from their products. Indeed, if the brand’s “Shared Goodness Promise” is genuine, a global pivot away from questionable chemicals could strengthen brand loyalty in the long run.

---

11. Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

11.1 Demanding Corporate Ethics Through Legislation

For many concerned consumers, the lawsuit signals a need to strengthen and harmonize PFAS regulation. Relying on spotty patchworks of state laws or voluntary corporate commitments can be too erratic. Instead, activists and consumer advocacy groups are calling for:

• Comprehensive Federal Standards: Beyond state-specific initiatives, federal legislation with strict PFAS limits in food packaging, juvenile products, and other consumer goods could close legal loopholes.
• Mandatory Disclosure: Companies selling products that might expose consumers to PFAS should be required to provide clear labeling, akin to the warnings mandated under California’s Proposition 65 for certain toxins.
• Robust Enforcement Mechanisms: Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, or their state counterparts need funding and statutory authority to conduct random spot checks and enforce penalties that truly deter corporate misbehavior.

11.2 Empowering Consumers to Drive Change

From the consumer side, there are multiple strategies to address potential corporate corruption, corporate greed, and the economic fallout of hazardous products:

1. Informed Purchasing: By seeking out brands that are independently certified PFAS-free or that provide transparent testing data, consumers can reward genuine corporate accountability.
2. Collective Action: Consumer cooperatives, neighborhood forums, or national organizations focused on chemical safety can pool resources to conduct more tests and publicize results, pushing companies to respond.
3. Supporting Litigation: Class actions can be more potent if large segments of the public come forward as plaintiffs or provide testimonies, data, and moral support.

11.3 Toward a More Inclusive Regulatory Paradigm

Neoliberal capitalism has often championed deregulation under the assumption that the market self-corrects. Yet, the PFAS saga suggests that large corporations sometimes fail to disclose known hazards until forced. Real reform requires an acknowledgment that wealth disparity—where only the corporations have the power to investigate or hide data—tilts the playing field away from consumers.

A more inclusive regulatory model would include:

• Proactive Testing: Mandatory product testing for industrial chemicals before items ever reach consumers.
• Community Participation: Inviting consumer and worker representatives to help shape production standards and safety thresholds.
• Transparency Mandates: Real-time disclosure of test results, with easily accessible data for the public.

11.4 Challenges and Hopes

Such sweeping changes are never easy, particularly in a globalized market with intricate supply chains. Companies with a foothold in multiple countries can pivot to weaker jurisdictions or exploit local vulnerabilities. Nonetheless, the controversies swirling around PFAS have drawn unprecedented scrutiny, galvanizing a generation of consumers, activists, and policymakers.

At best, the Hershey/Bubble Yum lawsuit could serve as a watershed moment—nudging not just Hershey, but the entire confectionery and snack industries, toward safer, more transparent practices. At worst, it may end in a confidential settlement, with nominal labeling changes and no real impetus for transformation. The final outcome will depend on consumer awareness, regulatory willpower, and corporate willingness (or reluctance) to place public health over profit maximization.

---