[fn-mote]

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.

[Lance_ET_Compte]

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

[AceJohnny2]

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

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

[ceejayoz]

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.

[gibolt]

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

/s, if unclear

[unsnap_biceps]

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.

[Suppafly]

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

[kyleee]

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

[Suppafly]

Sure, but that's super unlikely.

[nielsbot]

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

[Suppafly]

1) unlikely. 2) why would they be?

[nielsbot]

2) legal requirements?