State court allows 'pink slime' lawsuit to proceed
Source: AP-Excite
By REGINA GARCIA CANO
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) ABC's news anchor Diane Sawyer, two of the network's correspondents and other defendants in a $1.2 billion defamation lawsuit against the company related to its coverage of a meat product could be deposed following a ruling by the South Dakota Supreme Court.
The state's high court on Thursday denied a petition by the network and other defendants to review the case and largely dismiss it. The court also lifted a stay issued in April that had prevented the lawsuit's discovery process, including depositions, to begin.
The court did not express an opinion as to the merits of the appeal.
Beef Products Inc. sued the television network in 2012 seeking $1.2 billion in damages for the coverage of the meat product called lean, finely textured beef, which critics dubbed "pink slime." Dakota Dunes-based BPI said ABC's coverage led to the closure of three plants and roughly 700 layoffs by misleading consumers into believing the product is unsafe.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140523/pink_slime-lawsuit-8d1b2b1f46.html
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)...it's slightly off white chunks of slurry .
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)But it's still pink, it's slimy looking...and it's disgusting.
And if put to a vote of the people, I'll bet they would vote your shit out of our food.
SunSeeker
(51,657 posts)It's pink and it is slimy. Most people had no idea this trash meat filler was in their chicken nuggets or burgers. Once they knew, people insisted it not be used in their food. The people simply acted on information that had been hidden from them by these filler meat corporations. ABC revealed this information. That is exactly what journalists are supposed to do.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)even if ABC did in fact mislead consumers they (ABC) could always fallback and try to use the old Fox News defense of its their right to lie.
SunSeeker
(51,657 posts)ABC just reported that the stuff was called pink slime by some. As lawyers for ABC said, the term pink slime is not incorrect and the plaintiff company doesn't get to choose ABC's words.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)did.
Will the industry prevail again ABC? I kinda doubt it because as I said even if they did mislead people (big "if" there btw) they can always fall back to the fox news defense.
SunSeeker
(51,657 posts)Not sure ABC wants to go there. It would appear they do not have to.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)AceAcme
(93 posts)Revolting. Disgusting. Dumb.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... journalists did their job. That's a rarity in today's world.
Unless the report came right out and said "this stuff is poison", I don't see how they have a case here. And I'm pretty sure they didn't.
But, it will be costly to defend this so I wish them luck. I think they should just do what most slimy businessmen do when they find themselves in such a position, declare bankruptcy and thumb their nose at the plaintiff.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)they reported and we decided we dont want pink diarrhea in our food. we want food in our food. they have a 'beef' with the public not with abc
blackspade
(10,056 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,470 posts)just thought the 'product' was gross and have no desire to eat it.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... say GMO corn for example.
marble falls
(57,154 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)Crayons, being non-toxic, are safe to eat. Doesn't mean I want to have a 48 pack for Thanksgiving dinner.
mathematic
(1,439 posts)Fear of science wins again.
marble falls
(57,154 posts)The chemical industry has come with how many chemicals you'd rather have than water?
http://www.props.eric-hart.com/safety/so-many-chemicals-in-the-world/
Safety
So Many Chemicals in the World
September 3, 2010 Eric Hart
54,973,018. Thats how many registered organic and inorganic substances there were in the world when I wrote this sentence, according to the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS). The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives the EPA in the United States the authority to maintain an inventory of all chemicals used in commerce (excluding chemicals used in foods and food additives, pesticides, drugs, cosmetics, tobacco, nuclear material, or munitions). To date, their inventory contains 84,000 such chemicals. Over 1670 of these are considered hazardous substances which your employer is required to inform you when you are working with them. Youve probably seen products which state This product contains a chemical known to the state of California
There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 750 chemicals listed under Californias Proposition 65 which are known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
Of course, over 78% of the high volume chemicals produced have not had even basic toxicological testing (see Toxic Ignorance, published by the Environmental Defense Fund), let alone testing for carcinogenic properties. High Volume of course does not include all 84,000 chemicals used in commerce; in 1990, that list included a mere 2971 chemicals. In other words, around 653 chemicals have been tested for their toxicity by 1990. What a far cry that is from the 54,980,438 registered chemicals in existence (when I wrote this sentence). Some estimates put the total amount of chemicals tested worldwide for carcinogenic properties at around 900. Nine hundred out of nearly 55 million.
Whats a props person to do? When you look at all the products you use spray paints, adhesives, epoxies, mold-making and casting, coatings, sealants, resins, foams, cleaners, and so on and so on and count up all the various chemicals contained within, you could have hundreds of hazardous and carcinogenic substances which you are exposed to on a daily basis. If you wish to make a career of making props, that could mean several decades of exposure. It adds up quickly.
One shouldnt generalize about safety, because proper safety procedures involve specific actions for specific chemicals. But if one were to distill down the essence of safety it is this: dont breathe anything but air, and dont get stuff on you. Always use the least-toxic product in every situation. Often, the only benefit of a more-toxic option is speed, or ease of use. Formula 409 may cut grease faster and with less effort then soap and a scrubber, but soap will not be absorbed through your skin and cause reproductive harm.
In the brief time it took you to read this article, around 24 chemicals have been added to the CAS database. As I write this sentence, the number stands at 54,980,470.
Make my poison clean water, please.
And even if the chemical is life giving, don't I have the right to consume it or not?
mathematic
(1,439 posts)And you were doing the "equating", by declaring industrial chemicals off limits to the food supply. I realize that the category "industrial chemical" says absolutely nothing about the safety of amounts and forms of those chemicals.
benld74
(9,909 posts)they just reported. IT was the consumers who threw up in their mouths watching it and decided NO MORE.
yellowcanine
(35,701 posts)Great green globs of greasy, grimy gopher guts,
Mutilated monkey meat.
Dirty little birdie feet.
Great green globs of greasy, grimy gopher guts,
And me without my spoon.[5]
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I love how these champions of the great Free Market always lose their fucking minds and either demand bailouts or sue everyone within range when the peasants have the gall to choose not to buy their crap.