Quote:
Originally Posted by 77T
I don't believe anyone was charged with a crime. The litigation was for civil damages.
This DuPont issue is complicated. Chemistry itself is complicated when a breakthrough compound is discovered and then launched in its first-use application.
Does anyone recall the phrase “better things for better living through chemistry”?
In the depths of the 1930's Depression, DuPont's advertising slogan lauded its potential to solve virtually any human problem.
It's clear that without chemistry, the world would be a very different place.
What is not so clear is how unintended consequences bear on the succeeding generations of corporate leaders and any alleged intent to commit a crime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
|
Intent to commit a crime only attaches when there is knowledge of an underlying danger or defect that is then hidden by corporate leaders. New chemicals usually go through a pretty comprehensive testing phase as Blansky mentioned. This would insulate corporate leaders up to the point that new evidence shows harmful effects. At that point, the issue becomes “do they have a duty to disclose the new contrary information”. CEOs in the tobacco industry felt not and others have followed their lead - think Sacklers.
Sadly, I do think criminal penalties will need to be imposed to change corporate culture.