Call and ask your congressman …

Good point. I will email him later.

*

Damn, I’m using an old computer and that has Opera w/o a spell checker. As anyone can see, I need a spellchecker.

Well, looks like I’ll need to replace the M/B in mine. I just hate it when that happens!

From your link: The well-known Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad talks about how the SCOTUS gave them that distinction — For these reasons, it is literally an unprecedented extension of constitutional rights to US corporations

My problem is not that Nestle’s exersized their right, but that they had that right in the first place

Call and ask your congressman why that is. I can only tell you they’ve had it since the 1880s.

Thank you but I have no intereast in reading some propoganda Liebertarian piece.

A corporation is a legal entity separate from the persons that own it.

Corporations exist as a product of corporate law…

As an aside to that last piece, corporations are also required to perform certain things and requirements natural persons are not.

Now you do bring up some good points. As I recall though, Blackwater failed to obtain a permit as they lied on their application (they failed to state there would be explosives and a gun range). The application was abandoned and was to be moved elsewhere. Thus, Blackwater did not win. their suit but they did get something they would have had anyway; the right to sue when they are damaged.

My problem is not that Nestle’s exersized their right, but that they had that right in the first place. Every city has ordinaces that permit Health Inspectors to investigate any restaurant or food seller for health violations. They may even pull their permit without a court order if it is found to be unsanitary.

I already pointed out that the auto makers must reoport all safety related complaints to NTSA and drug manufacturers must report all known adverse reactions to the FDA (although I am not sure of the total extent there). The point is there is plenty of precedent that allows the FDA and USDA to make regulations or even call for statute that would allow deeper inspections of food facilities.

They are considered a person. And that law builds on it:

In the case of any person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures

Since a “person” can be neither a farm nor a restaurant, it is only logical they are treating corporations as persons.

Now, I don’t agree with that mindset — indeed, I don’t recall a defense of Nestle, only the facts (arguing with my brain and not my emotions).

Here is an interesting article on just that subject, if you can stop your whining long enough to read it.

http://tinyurl.com/l4f8eo

IMO, that’s the root of the major problems in our country today — lobbyists and the reps and senators they own.

In conclusion, corps are considered persons. Change it if you can. I’m trying I own one.

Good God- with due respect, have you been paying attention to the shenanigans of Obama, etc., lately? What we don’t need right now is a government agency made immune to lawsuits. Give me the occasional tainted cookie roll.

So you parrot what I wrote. Yippee.

First, the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable since a corporation is NOT a person. It does not have the same protections as a natural person does.

The bigger question is WHY can an investigator NOT insist the corporation turn over all health complaints? The auto industry has to turn over all safety complaints and issues they become AWARE of. Drug companies must make the FDA aware of all reported side effects. So there is precedent.

Never mind, the health and safety of Americans is secondary, in the Liebertarian mindset, to the trouble it would take to inform the government of any health issues.

http://tinyurl.com/ltcv8h

From SEC. 704. [21 USC §374] Factory Inspection:

[...]In the case of any person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, transports, distributes, holds, or imports foods, the inspection shall extend to all records and other information described in section 414 when the Secretary has a reasonable belief that an article of food is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals[...]

Combine that with a little known section of the Constitution called “Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure.”

Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the inspectors don’t have probable cause then they have no legal authority to go through the records.

However, if the poison can be traced back to the plant, like it was, then yes they can ask for it. And if you RTFA, you’ll see Nestle has since complied, as defined by the law.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

#2 Let us known which one is the non-toxic variety. Oy!

#3 This is weird. You all might think the world is coming to and end. And it might be, but here goes anyway.

#10 Don’t tell me you were amongst those who bought the “change” crap.

I agree with you.

Most likely the agency didn’t really want to know. Regulatory agencies tend to end up working for the companies they’re supposed to regulate, all the way back to the Interstate Commerce Commission and the USDA.

Who needs them? No one.

End of story………….

The burden is on the FDA to find faults and discrepancies.
They are not allowed to view proprietary documents.
They have little to no ability to enforce the laws, only to inspect and report.

The problem with the FDA is threefold:
a) they don’t have enough inspectors to actually inspect every facility that produces foods, drugs, cosmetics, or medical devices.
b) they have no actual ability to enforce anything.
c) companies can still sue the FDA (the US gov) for damages in case of a spurious report or concern that becomes public record.