In Morson v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 775, the Court cited to a treatise writer for the concept that " 'the line between design and manufacturing defects is not necessarily a sharp one. This is clear when one considers that the choice of quality control techniques may determine the rate of metallurgical flaws, which ordinarily would be characterized as "manufacturing defects" rather than design defects. One may note, moreover, that those kinds of entrepreneurial decisions are quite analogous to the sorts of choices that are made in selecting one product configuration or another on the basis of cost considerations.' " ( Id. at p. 789, citing 1 Shapo, The Law of Products Liability (3d ed. 1994) 9.01(2), pp. 9-5 to 9-6.) Also in Morson, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 775, the Court noted that in general, the plaintiffs in these coordinated latex glove cases are alleging a theory of injury that "appears to have aspects common to both the design defect and manufacturing defect theories" ( id. at p. 789), in that "the materials from which the latex gloves were made contained excessive amounts of latex rubber proteins close to the surface of the gloves, causing the Plaintiffs to become sensitized to them and to develop or to exacerbate an existing allergy." (Ibid.) The Court discussed the particular nature of this product as having primarily a protective or barrier function, leading to the choice of latex as an appropriate material, but also noting that the effect of this material and the manufacturing processes used "may well be to create in their users many degrees of allergic reactions. Understanding and assessing responsibility for such allergic reactions is a matter that is driven by the science of the manufacturing and preparation procedures, as well as the medical aspects of an individual's allergic reactions to various substances." ( Id. at p. 793.)