Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFood industry conspired to circumvent campaign disclosure laws in anti-GMO label referendum
The nations largest food industry group broke the spirit and letter of the law when it concealed the backers of a multimillion dollar campaign to kill a food-labeling initiative, a state of Washington Superior Court judge ruled on Friday.http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/big-food-illegally-hid-funders-of-campaign-to-kill-gmo-labeling-effort-judge-rules/
The pre-trial ruling ... found that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the food industry group, violated the states campaign finance disclosure laws when it tried to hide the identities of the corporate funders. GMA had waged a fight against Washingtons 2013 food-labeling initiative, with $11 million in donations from PepsiCo, Nestle and Coca Cola.
The state Initiative 522, which would have required food labels for genetically modified ingredients, was narrowly defeated.
The statute reads: "If the violation is found to have been intentional, the amount of the judgment, which shall for this purpose include the costs, may be trebled as punitive damages."http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Judge-rules-Washington-D-C-food-lobby-6884935.php
Triple damages? A trial will decide.
Hirsch determined that there's still a factual dispute over whether the Grocery Manufacturers Association circumvention of Washington law was intentional.
The judge did not determine a penalty, ruling that the case will continue to trial on disputed facts.
So, here's the thing. Even if the food industry loses at trial, and the loss is upheld on appeal--and that's a BIG if--the amount of money they will be fined, even with the triple amount in punitive damages, will just be a drop in the bucket compared to how much they save by being able to use genetically-modified ingredients and not having to list that on the labels. In other words, just a tiny fraction in the cost of doing business ...
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1249 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Food industry conspired to circumvent campaign disclosure laws in anti-GMO label referendum (Original Post)
TheDormouse
Mar 2016
OP
old guy
(3,283 posts)1. A dispute over it being intentional?
Not a defense. Ignorance of the law has never been a defense.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)2. They claim they always intended to comply with the law &
say that their lawyer told them what they were doing was legal.
old guy
(3,283 posts)3. But officer my speedometer said I was going 55 not 75 like the radar said.
Not that it matters at all, but I don't believe it.