In Doyle v. Pillsbury Co., 476 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1985), the Court observed that the impact rule would not bar a cause of action for damages caused by the ingestion of a contaminated can of peas. There, the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Doyle, opened a can of peas and observed an insect floating on top of the contents. Mrs. Doyle jumped back in alarm, fell over a chair and suffered physical injuries. The plaintiffs sued the Pillsbury Company, Green Giant Company, and Publix Supermarkets, alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the impact rule barred the plaintiffs' cause of action, and the district court affirmed. On review, this Court approved the outcome but disapproved of the application of the impact rule. The Court initially recognized that ingestion of a food or drink product is a necessary prerequisite to a cause of action against restaurants, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of food. In doing so, the Court impliedly found that ingestion of a food or beverage containing a foreign substance constitutes an "impact": Claims for injuries caused by foreign objects in food or drink led to the adoption of liability predicated on an implied warranty of fitness without regard to privity where a consumer suffers injury from unwholesome food. This Court first applied the breach of implied warranty theory to food manufacturers or packers, to restaurants, and to retailers of food products. Even with these liberalized rules to promote recovery for physical and psychic injury, the foreign object cases all involve some ingestion of a portion of the food or drink product. To this extent Florida courts have required an "impact." This ingestion requirement is grounded upon foreseeability rather than the impact rule. The public has become accustomed to believing in and relying on the fact that packaged foods are fit for consumption. A producer or retailer of food should foresee that a person may well become physically or mentally ill after consuming part of a food product and then discovering a deleterious foreign object, such as an insect or rodent, in presumably wholesome food or drink. The manufacturer or retailer must expect to bear the costs of the resulting injuries. The same foreseeability is lacking where a person simply observes the foreign object and suffers injury after the observation. The mere observance of unwholesome food cannot be equated to consuming a portion of the same. We should not impose virtually unlimited liability in such cases. When a claim is based on an inert foreign object in a food product, we continue to require ingestion of a portion of the food before liability arises. Because Mrs. Doyle never ingested any portion of the canned peas, the trial court properly granted summary judgment against the Doyles. (Id. at 1271-72.) Hence, the Court concluded that ingestion was a critical factor in our foreseeability analysis, but the "mere observance of unwholesome food cannot be equated to consuming a portion of the same." Id. at 1272.