Hacker News Reader

Comment by fn-mote | Hacker News Reader

They commissioned the testing by independent labs. Scroll past the disclaimer. The results should be surprising & they are bad news.

One interesting remark, although not nearly the most damning item in the article:

> Our expert heading this case believes that HSY deliberately uses uncommon, harder-to-detect PFAS compounds to avoid detection and bans, while the negative health implications of such uncommon substances remain similar.

View on HN

Their "intent" is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Nothing else matters; not today, and not in the future.

that's literally FUD, though: Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

Without proof, you can't conclude anything about intent.

If I kick you in the balls repeatedly, you can't prove I wasn't possessed by a demon and am totally innocent of the act.

In the real world, we're allowed to draw reasonable conclusions.

So, the reasonable interpretation is that people at HSY were possessed by demons? Knowledge like that could streamline the court system

/s, if unclear

You can be sure Hershey will throw a supplier to the wolves if they can point a finger and be reasonably sure there's no way to trace the decision back to Hershey.

There is almost certainly no way this is Hershey's fault, they don't make packaging, they just buy it from suppliers.

1) Could they have known? 2) Are they required to test?

1) unlikely. 2) why would they be?

2) legal requirements?

Unless they are/were aware of the issue and chose to ignore it/cover it up

Sure, but that's super unlikely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com