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

Omaha Steve

(99,669 posts)
Thu May 22, 2014, 11:33 PM May 2014

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

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
State court allows 'pink slime' lawsuit to proceed (Original Post) Omaha Steve May 2014 OP
Shame on ABC! It's not pink slime 951-Riverside May 2014 #1
If the shoe fits . . . Ed Suspicious May 2014 #2
They can call it whatever they want... SoapBox May 2014 #3
Truth is a defense. SunSeeker May 2014 #4
The lawsuit is about ABC misleading people into thinking it is unsafe but cstanleytech May 2014 #13
As the article notes, ABC never said the product was unsafe. SunSeeker May 2014 #18
"As the article notes, ABC never said the product was unsafe." No but the company is claiming they cstanleytech May 2014 #19
The Fox News defense is we're not news, we're entertainment. SunSeeker May 2014 #21
Ugh. blkmusclmachine May 2014 #5
Doesn't help that they feed cows on leftover GMO waste crap from biofuel plants AceAcme May 2014 #6
Wow...... sendero May 2014 #7
where's the defamation leftyohiolib May 2014 #8
Maybe because it is unsafe? blackspade May 2014 #9
I don't think consumers had a fear of the 'product ' being unsafe. They sinkingfeeling May 2014 #10
Sort of like. sendero May 2014 #11
I don't care if it is "safe", that's a low bar to meet, I don't want industrial chemical in my food marble falls May 2014 #12
+1 christx30 May 2014 #16
Water is an industrial chemical mathematic May 2014 #20
As long as you equate water to formaldehyde, I'd like you to come on over for a drink ..... marble falls May 2014 #22
Which has precisely nothing to do with pink slime. mathematic May 2014 #23
I cannot recall the word unsafe being used in the story,,,, benld74 May 2014 #14
What's next, suing school children for singing "Great green globs of greasy grimy gopher guts?" yellowcanine May 2014 #15
A blatantly obvious SLAPP suit. JoeyT May 2014 #17

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
3. They can call it whatever they want...
Fri May 23, 2014, 02:47 AM
May 2014

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

(51,576 posts)
4. Truth is a defense.
Fri May 23, 2014, 03:44 AM
May 2014
http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/msm.asp

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

(26,300 posts)
13. The lawsuit is about ABC misleading people into thinking it is unsafe but
Fri May 23, 2014, 10:08 AM
May 2014

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

(51,576 posts)
18. As the article notes, ABC never said the product was unsafe.
Sat May 24, 2014, 04:07 AM
May 2014

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

(26,300 posts)
19. "As the article notes, ABC never said the product was unsafe." No but the company is claiming they
Sat May 24, 2014, 07:26 AM
May 2014

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

(51,576 posts)
21. The Fox News defense is we're not news, we're entertainment.
Sat May 24, 2014, 04:19 PM
May 2014

Not sure ABC wants to go there. It would appear they do not have to.

 

AceAcme

(93 posts)
6. Doesn't help that they feed cows on leftover GMO waste crap from biofuel plants
Fri May 23, 2014, 06:58 AM
May 2014

Revolting. Disgusting. Dumb.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
7. Wow......
Fri May 23, 2014, 07:19 AM
May 2014

.... 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)
8. where's the defamation
Fri May 23, 2014, 07:52 AM
May 2014

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

sinkingfeeling

(51,463 posts)
10. I don't think consumers had a fear of the 'product ' being unsafe. They
Fri May 23, 2014, 09:14 AM
May 2014

just thought the 'product' was gross and have no desire to eat it.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
16. +1
Fri May 23, 2014, 02:37 PM
May 2014

Crayons, being non-toxic, are safe to eat. Doesn't mean I want to have a 48 pack for Thanksgiving dinner.

marble falls

(57,124 posts)
22. As long as you equate water to formaldehyde, I'd like you to come on over for a drink .....
Sat May 24, 2014, 05:00 PM
May 2014

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. That’s 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. You’ve 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 California’s 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.

What’s 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 shouldn’t 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: don’t breathe anything but air, and don’t 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)
23. Which has precisely nothing to do with pink slime.
Sat May 24, 2014, 05:36 PM
May 2014

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

(9,904 posts)
14. I cannot recall the word unsafe being used in the story,,,,
Fri May 23, 2014, 01:33 PM
May 2014

they just reported. IT was the consumers who threw up in their mouths watching it and decided NO MORE.

yellowcanine

(35,699 posts)
15. What's next, suing school children for singing "Great green globs of greasy grimy gopher guts?"
Fri May 23, 2014, 01:45 PM
May 2014

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)
17. A blatantly obvious SLAPP suit.
Fri May 23, 2014, 09:24 PM
May 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»State court allows 'pink ...