jill occupy wall street.jpgFaux feminism or fear-mongering fascism? Those aren't the only choices available at the polls this November. Voters need not let hawkish Hillary and dictatorial Donald keep them from casting their ballots. Instead, we are presented with the opportunity -- and obligation -- to support the candidate Cornel West calls "the only progressive woman in the race" -- Massachusetts physician and activist Jill Stein.

Dr. Stein's "Power to the People Plan" emphasizes human rights, environmental protection, and peace, even as her opponents promote discrimination, degradation and endless war. Her campaign is what Bernie's should have been -- without the capitulations to power that marred his efforts from the beginning. Her platform is a revolutionary document, spelling out the desperately-needed changes to our society that other candidates only hint at or deny.

From mandating a moratorium on GMOs, to ending U.S. aid to Israel and supporting Palestinian rights, to repealing the Taft-Hartley Act with its devastating anti-labor provisions, to repealing NAFTA and replacing free trade with fair trade, to enacting a job-creating "Green New Deal" as America transitions to 100% clean energy by 2030, to ensuring a living wage and guaranteeing full employment, to replacing the bloodsucking health insurance system with national medical care, to revitalizing our education system and ending our reliance on corporate curricula and tests, to a myriad of other people-over-profit pledges, Dr. Stein's agenda is grounded in a firm radical foundation.

Importantly, this platform can be achieved by cutting our bloated budget and spending our resources effectively -- as well as shifting the tax burden to those who can pay, effectively "dumping the bosses off our backs."

This is why, come November, I'll be casting my first-ever ballot for President for a person uniquely qualified for the job -- a person whose integrity is reminiscent of Shirley Chisholm's 1972 slogan: Unbossed and Unbought!

Conscious Commitment Officially Endorses...

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
The Republican convention is now in full swing, and the GOP is coming around to the idea of the Trump family. Hillary Clinton is now unavoidably the Democratic contender, and is vetting potential veeps as she prepares for her own party's powwow in a few days. Since the lines are now drawn and the general election draws nearer, it is the logical time for the Conscious Commitment campaign to announce its support for...

...Nobody.

Here's why. Hillary Clinton might have revamped her rhetoric to include progressive platitudes about her allegiance with the consumer, but her record reveals her actual political priorities. Her prolonged consideration of Tom Vilsack - a notorious agribusiness lackey who has previously used his official capacity as Iowa Governor to bail out combined GMO/pharmaceutical corporations in the face of federal fines - highlights her readiness to allow the industry's deception to continue uncurbed. But her own actions in 2014, when she accepted $335,000 to speak to Monsanto's lobbying group and subsequently gave them their money's worth, signal her support for their lawless practices even more clearly:

Hillary Monsanto.jpgDonald Trump, though his brashness may have offended even the brazen biotech industry, has been no more courageous in opposing their fraud. During the primaries this characteristically puerile but undeniably anti-GMO tweet briefly appeared on his feed:

Trump Monsanto.jpg
He quickly backed down from even this trivial statement, deleting the post when Monsanto expressed its displeasure and blaming a hapless intern for its appearance. We would like to note that there would be nothing wrong with the post's removal if it had been taken down because of its inappropriate tone -- however, his willingness to repeatedly post similarly jejune messages after the incident signals that he was merely kowtowing to the crops cartel. 

Clearly, neither of these candidates has the fortitude to either turn down Monsanto's generous oratorical invitations or stand by their sentiments and staff in times of controversy, and therefore "Conscious Commitment" cannot endorse either in good conscience.

(Our blog expresses thanks to Food Democracy Now for the graphic with Hillary's event flyer)

Why Barratry Should be Legalized

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Recently, there have been reports that members of several progressive grassroots organizations involved in campaigns against the pharmaceutical industry's fraud, such as the National Consumers League, are being investigated for attempted barratry. This is the crime of inciting a lawsuit by contacting a potential plaintiff who might not otherwise be inclined to sue, usually without any financial benefit for the guilty party. Most states have a statute prohibiting such activity to discourage ambulance-chasing and other questionable practices. However, in the past century these laws have been invoked almost solely as a tactic to suppress legitimate causes from the litigation connected to the Montgomery bus boycott to the campaign to hold tobacco companies accountable for false advertising. Not only is this selective enforcement unethical, the concept of barratry as a crime subverts some of the most elementary tenets of our justice system.

Firstly, this system provides a person who knows of such duplicity with the illegal choice to make affected citizens aware they are being deceived, or the more inequitable alternative of allowing an unlawful practice to continue untrammeled. Often in cases of widespread corporate wrongdoing, the facts are deliberately couched in esoteric phraseology which renders the affected consumers entirely unable to form a clear picture of their own rights and obligations. Therefore the continuance of square business dealings is to some extent reliant on the willingness of citizen activists to broadcast their discoveries to those impacted by chicanery, so that due action may be initiated.

Secondly, the courts' strict requirements for standing to sue are partially to blame for this quandary. The case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Ass'n, et al. v. Monsanto, No. 13-303, is an illustration of this. The controversy arose from GMO seed company Monsanto's pattern of prosecuting organic farmers for alleged patent infringement because of cross-pollination from neighboring fields and other forms of inadvertent contamination. The Association and co-plaintiffs sought an injunction on behalf of their 300,000 growers seeking an injunction against this harassment, but the Federal Circuit dismissed the case because Monsanto had never threatened suit against or demanded payment from the Association itself. Not only did this decision hamper any relief in these particular circumstances, it ended one of the only unquestionably safe means to coordinate legal action. Since an organization's right to protect its interests in its own name were thus denied, such institutions are effectively compelled to reach out to individual members in order to organize court challenges - and thereby expose themselves to barratry charges.

Finally, the long-standing principle that neglect to report knowledge of a crime already (or about to be) committed also deepens the dilemma - especially where public officials have declined to act on a matter of grave public importance, such as the overreach of Monsanto or the pharmaceutical cartels. In many instances justice would never be served if injured parties were not made aware of their rights, leaving the unlucky fact-finder with the choice to become either the principal in an instance of barratry or an accessory after the fact in an instance of corporate chicanery. That action on these widespread issues is discouraged or even punished is deeply ironic. If the perpetrator of a common larceny were skillful enough to convince his victim, when his crime was discovered, that he was legally entitled to commit that felony - in such a case as that, any bystander who failed to intervene would doubtlessly find himself the recipient of universal censure for his disregard of basic justice. Cases of corporate fraud, wholesale denial of civil rights, or egregious injury are no different, and yet an observer who speaks out in those instances will be rewarded only with the fear of prosecution.

The prohibition on barratry will probably remain law for the foreseeable future, but simply because it is jurisprudence does not mean it is justice. In my opinion, something is fundamentally wrong with a judicial and legislative organization that has readily overturned or repealed policies such as the strict corporate liability doctrine or the Glass-Steagall banking responsibility law, but leaves this outdated provision on the books to the detriment of true social and economic equality

Update: Missouri's Inaction on Monsanto

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Almost two months ago, we informed you of the duplicitous practices of Monsanto, Inc, which sells its genetically modified seeds to its growers on the condition that they sign a uniform contract in which Monsanto propagates the supposal that its patent protection extends farther than it does under federal patent laws. Once farmers sign this agreement, even though it is predicated on a fraudulent pretense, they are barred from saving and replanting seed grown from Monsanto crops - even though they have the right to do so under 35 U.S.C. §163.

Since then, I had reported Monsanto's misconduct to the Consumer Protection Division of the Missouri Attorney General's office, in the hope that they could put an end to this chicanery. Since Monsanto is incorporated in Missouri and actively selected that state in the "Choice of Law" provisions of their unconscionable contract, it follows that the Division has ample jurisdiction over this pattern and practice of misconduct. Yet, in responding to my complaint, they disavowed any authority to act on the matter:

Missouri.jpg

I understand that the State's decision to pursue the issue or not is a matter of prosecutorial discretion -- I am simply sharing the rather interesting grounds they chose to justify their inaction.

After years of dismissing activists' ongoing initiative to create consistent GMO labeling standards, the Senate has finally exercised its plenary power and approved a measure that would impose uniform requirements on the food industry.

There's only one little problem.

The proposed law, known as the Roberts-Stabenow bill, does not actually replace the comprehensive state laws it strikes down with any provision for the clear labeling of genetically altered ingredients directly on the package. Instead, it allows corporations to withhold this information by substituting a web address, telephone number or QR code - a form of barcode that can only be scanned and interpreted by certain cell phone apps - for the simple text advisory that already appears on many boxes due to state statutes. This impractical loophole is clearly designed to keep consumers from accessing the very information the Senate supposedly just recognized their right to, and as such is an unreasonable restriction on citizens' liberty to make free and informed personal choices. Even wealthy shoppers will face the considerable obstacle of having to consume minutes, data, and inordinate amounts of time to scan a box, find the correct page on a provided corporate website, or navigate an automated phone system for every article in their carts, when in many states they could formerly turn the package to read the desired statement.

The implications for lower- and middle-class consumers, whose freedom to choose is already hampered by the exorbitant pricing and limited availability of organic foods, are even worse. Many families simply cannot afford the unlimited cellular plans that such incessant telephone calls, usage of phone browsers, and scanning of QR codes would involve; and some do not possess the necessary technology at all. And the alternatives - remembering the corresponding URL for every purchase and visiting every appropriate website, or dialing a long list of numbers at home to listen to robotic messages - cannot possibly take place prior to purchasing the products in question, and therefore do not serve in any way to inform the customer's purchasing decision. This disparate impact is yet another reason that the compromise contained in Roberts-Stabenow has no practical positive effect on the shopping process, in reality.

Obviously, our elected officials have once more chosen duplicitous corporations like Monsanto over the well-being of their constituents. This Senatorial sellout can still be rejected by the House of Representatives, though, and it is imperative that they do so. Passage of the law would hinder any future attempts to close the technological loopholes, and place an unfair burden on the consumer in the simple endeavor to retain some authority over our own bodies.

2015-16 Supreme Court Term in Review

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
It's that time of year again. One First Street is shuttered for the season, and you bid temporary adieu to your favorite Justices and advocates until next October (or you simply turn to the comprehensive catalog of reruns that you, like other true Supreme Court junkies, rely on in those summer months). You lament that improvident Docket Bracket wager, and curse the eternal optimism that led you to believe that just maybe the party you were rooting for would carry the day after all. And then you inevitably catalog your favorite moments of the bygone year, that witty line in that slip opinion or that hard question during oral argument that changed everything. It's a special moment made to peer forward impatiently, but it's also a moment to look back on an exhilarating year - and it is in that spirit that I venture my reflections on the October Term of 2015.

Of course, the most unforeseeable and drastic event of the year was the passing of Justice Scalia this February. There is simply no way to adequately sum up all the different ways he changed the Court. I would begin by stating that even though he is gone, his Constitution lives on - but that seems like a highly inappropriate way to pay one's respects to a thoroughgoing originalist.

(Speaking of which, the "Constitution: Dead or Alive" debate shows no signs of going anywhere, but I still don't understand all the fuss. People who insist that it's alive and kicking use that premise to justify all manner of overreach into decidedly local business, from Goldberg v. Kelly to District of Columbia v. Heller; those who assert that it's dead as a doorknob use that to ignore its plainest wording, from Greece v. Galloway to Gregg v. Georgia. I prefer to think of it as unchanging (so dead) but enduring (so alive), and I honestly don't see the problem with that contradiction. It worked out just fine for Schrodinger's cat.)

constitutionisdead.jpg
Oh, right - back to our topic, Justice Scalia. Whether you loved him or hated him, you had to admit that his judicial exploits always somehow stuck in your head. There was the time he discussed broccoli with General Verrilli, like it was the most natural thing in the world. The time he said that a man's innocence was no reason not to execute him for a capital crime (and, no, for all of you who have always wondered, Lionel Torres Herrera could not be saved on remand). The time he asked an unsuspecting lawyer, point-blank, whether or not he was reading from notes. The time he grudgingly admitted that cannons weren't protected by the Second Amendment (but wasn't so sure about rocket launchers). And all the countless times we heard him pounding on the bench to accentuate his point - a sound that we'll always associate with one of those hard questions.

But the year held more incredible twists and turns, and the docket had plenty of surprises as well. Probably one of the most highly anticipated appellate blockbusters of the Term was Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n, the case on the constitutionality of agency-shop labor agreements. The petitioners tried the freedom-of-association angle, complete with a nod to the "money is speech" concept and high-flying rhetoric about "fixed stars in our constitutional constellation." To which the respondents said basically: "Adair you to - double-[yellow]-dog!" And it worked, at least for all practical purposes.

expounding.jpgNo summary of the past year would be complete without a rundown of all the other embarrassing splits handed down this Term. There was US v. Texas, in which the Justices couldn't agree to deport or not to deport. And there was Zubik v. Burwell, in which they narrowly avoided stalemate by a brief stint as the Supreme Arbitration Panel, suggesting that the parties might be able to work something out (maybe we haven't come so far since Van Staphorst v. Maryland, 225 years and 597 U.S. Reports volumes later).

I am also bound to mention the most preposterous moment of the year, and I believe Nichols v. United States earned that honor as the case in which the famed electric courtroom air failed to live up to its luminous reputation, and the splendid halls were suddenly cloaked in blackness. Come to think of it, that actually sounds like a good movie - power goes out in a lightning storm, resulting in a Night at the Museum kind of thing where those remarkably lifelike statues of Warren Burger, John Marshall and Clarence Thomas suddenly spring to action and start asking questions.

No, wait. That happened, at least 1/3 of it, in yet another highlight of this unpredictable year. Just when we were thoroughly convinced he was no longer on speaking terms with a solitary member of the SC bar, was afflicted with acute and permanent laryngitis,  had secretly become a Cistercian monk, or all of the above, an unfamiliar voice addressed an unsuspecting advocate with a question - a hard one - and it took us all a moment to figure out what had happened. It might be hard for advocates to get used to, knowing that they could get grilled at any moment by any member of the bench - but then again, it doesn't seem like they'll have to get too used to it, so that's an issue for another day.

And, finally, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the dramatic decision that closed out the term with a ringing reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade. Kennedy indeed swung left, providing us with a 5-3 majority that suggests the era of this might finally be over:

swingvote.jpgOr not - I suspect the ghost of Zubik past will haunt us all next Term. But for now, the Constitution is safe in the hands of the lower courts, leaving us to enjoy our summer (or, as the case may be, speculate about the cert. pool. But that's our problem).


Say No to TPP: Brexit and US Trade Policy

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
It's official. 51.9% of British citizens decided to leave the European Union in a landmark referendum, choosing national sovereignty and control of their own policies over their forty-three year bond with continental Europe. This decision was definitely influenced somewhat by the ongoing migrant crisis, but also stemmed from widespread frustration with the trend of globalization. Britain decided that the benefits of closer integration with foreign countries - the job creation and international harmony that free-trade deals were supposed to create, but that never materialized - were outweighed by the costs - the loss of many jobs, an influx of imported goods, and the partial loss of national independence.

Here in the United States, we are facing a similar decision on the future of our jobs as a vote on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership looms, but what we may not realize is that we as citizens have the same power Britons just exercised.

According to this document's preamble, it "promotes economic integration to liberalize trade and investment, bring economic growth and social benefits... reduce poverty and promote sustainable growth." Apparently, our government and the corporations it is speaking for here do not expect us to read further. Because if we do, we will notice that this, too, was likely generated in the same specious slippery spirit as all those other things that don't deceive us. We will refuse to be fooled. We will realize that this agreement does nothing to prevent the mass exodus of our American jobs; it merely bids them adieu as the gangplank goes up and they go puffing away. It does nothing to protect the foreign laboring class, give them decent hours or the right to improve their situation through collective bargaining; it merely gives the dignified speech at the cornerstone laying of another faraway sweatshop. It does nothing to hinder the commonplace crimes against our persons, the toxic air and corrupted foods we accept for lack of a choice; it merely sanctions the conspiracy of silence keeping us ignorant of what we're doing to ourselves. And it sets up a subtle satire of the justice system, allowing corporate lawyers to eviscerate our progressive statutes without ever setting foot in U.S. courts, while simultaneously subjecting regulators to the twists and turns of tangled, undeveloped foreign legal systems if they want to enforce the more liberal provisions.

They insist that all this will do us a service, provide a much-needed boost to our economy. But by doing away with the vilified Reign of Tariffs, they are only enabling foreign governments and corporations to encroach on our independence. But we can defeat this if we pull together to remind Congress that they ultimately answer to the people that trusted them to serve us - even if all we could contribute to their campaigns was our support.

We can continue to fight for our economy and our rights as consumers. We can Say No to TPP.

Conscious Commitment: Help Us "Save Our Seeds"

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Recently, we told you about the unlawful practices of Monsanto Technologies, which develops and conditionally sells GMO seeds using a standardized, unconscionable contract which prohibits farmers from saving and replanting the seed. Acting under color of this misrepresentation, they have maliciously prosecuted dozens of law-abiding growers, stifled the academic freedom to research their seeds, and obtained the Supreme Court's stamp of approval on a manifest fraud.

I have since launched an initiative to bring Monsanto and their executives to justice and hold them accountable for their falsehoods. I need your help to do this, however. Recognizing that, I created a We the People petition exhorting the Department of Justice to take action against these corporate criminals:

"We the People ask our DOJ to take antitrust action against Monsanto Technologies and preserve the rights of American farmers and consumers. Monsanto has created an unconscionable, illegal contract in which farmers agree not to save seed, ignoring the clear words of patent laws and the PVPA.

Restricting access to new technology in no way furthers agribusiness' supposed goal of feeding the world; informing citizens as to the contents of the laws in no way jeopardizes any legal purpose. Our officials serve those who shape law with soft money instead of firm stands, and scientific and economic freedom is trampled as a result. We are merely asking the enforcers of our laws to take a stand for us, to recognize the flagrant violations of the Sherman Act Monsanto and like companies commit daily."

Please sign our petition today - help me live up to this "Conscious Commitment" to protect economic freedom in this country.

Update: Clean Power Remand Cert. Denied

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a new list of orders in which it denied certiorari review, without explanation, to the case of Michigan v. EPA, which concerned whether the Agency unlawfully refused to consider costs in the promulgation of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act. It had already heard the case once last year, ruling in favor of Michigan and other industry petitioners, but sent the matter back to the D.C. Circuit without explicitly vacating the MATS.

The Circuit, led by Judge (and future Justice) Garland, accordingly allowed the MATS to remain enforceable until new guidelines were issued by the EPA. Michigan accordingly took the matter to Chief Justice John Roberts, who denied their indignant stay application of his own accord without referring the matter to conference. The ensuing full petition was also rejected in a one-line order on Monday - this is most important because it signals that no four Justices thought Michigan's position was meritorious enough to warrant a hearing, a fact that could bode well for the rest of the Clean Power Plan when West Virginia v. EPA is heard at the beginning of next Term.

This could also indicates a shift in the Court's perception of equitable relief. Since the petitioners' demands in the first Michigan fall under the purview of traditional equity rules, the courts are given greater latitude to consider the greater good when deciding on these claims. The D.C. Circuit exercised that chancery jurisdiction in this case, concluding that the benefits to citizens' health and welfare - up to 11,000 instances of premature mortality prevented annually, as well as 4,700 cardiac emergencies and 250,000 instances of respiratory illness every year - outweighed the burden that regulatory compliance places on the energy and manufacturing industries. As was said in 1947, "a strong showing is required, both of inadequacy of the prescribed procedure and impending harm, to permit short-circuiting of the administrative process," and the petitioners failed to prove that any impending harm caused by the case would adversely impact them. Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752. By allowing that determination of the D.C. Circuit to stand, the Supreme Court renewed what the respondents called the tribunal's "longstanding reluctance to displace traditional equitable authority absent the 'clearest command' or an inescapable inference' to the contrary." (Citation omitted). In recent years, such deference to administrative discretion and the principles of equity has been rare, but as this denial shows, the reversal of that trend could be imminent.

The mere denial of a cert. petition is rarely treated with the same weight as a full decision, and even this acknowledgement of citizens' interests and the EPA's authority cannot fully erase the damage created by the Michigan precedent. However, the changing Court and the changing political climate inevitably move American jurisprudence forward, and we at PlanetGreen believe that someday the natural world will receive the respect from the judiciary that Justice Douglas once famously declared it deserved:

"So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes -- fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water -- whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger -- must be able to speak for the values which the river represents, and which are threatened with destruction." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).

Our earlier coverage of this case, both a preliminary statement of the issues and a personal perspective.

Conscious Commitment: Inmar, Inc.

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
coupon.jpgYour wallet speaks for itself. Evidence of Inmar, Inc.'s dominance in the coupon industry is everywhere. Blazoned under the colorful trademarks of everything from breakfast cereal to batteries; stacked beneath the flashing lights of that dispenser on the grocery store aisle shelf; inserted in the newspaper curled up in that mailbox; folded and crumpled in that disorganized folder; printed on glossy vibrant paper and plastered onto the boxes composing that supermarket display.

Just last April, Inmar released a statement announcing that it had taken over coupon processing services for Procter & Gamble brands. This development cements the existing diarchy Inmar and its supposed competitor but actual collaborator, Valassis Communications, enjoy over this industry. In the statement, Inmar asserts that P&G formerly handled its own coupons, but this has not always been the case. A 2006 10-K form Valassis filed with the SEC states that P&G accounted for over 10% of that company's income the previous year, indicating that P&G has merely shuttled its business between the two corporations instead of comprising a third major player in the coupon-clearing market.

In the same 10-K form, Valassis names Inmar as one of its main competitors, but this claim is plainly refuted by the business relations they openly sustain. In its capacity as the owner of RedPlum, a mailing distributing coupons held by various companies directly to consumers, Valassis openly and actively aids Inmar in disseminating its coupons. Clearly this is not the aggressive competition one would expect from two companies which jointly "control approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the total vendor coupon redemptions" (Compl. §16, 15-4434 (JLL), Dist. NJ (1015)).

The pattern of monopolization does not stop there, however. Though Inmar's coupon redemption and product return business is its most visible enterprise to consumers, it is certainly not its only venture. It is actually the predominant figure in the pharmaceutical returns market as well, and our research into its practices indicates that the leverage it enjoys as a result of its prominence could have far-reaching consequences for citizens compelled to trust it with their health.

It was a minor incident, and never should have been the major controversy it turned into. In November of 2008, Johnson & Johnson and its affiliate, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, noticed that several lots of their product Motrin failed to satisfy their manufacturing standards and were defective. This news immediately followed a string of recalls of other popular Johnson & Johnson products, including widely used cold and allergy medicines. Presumably to avoid the negative publicity that would result from expanding the recall to include the faulty Motrin, Johnson & Johnson decided to keep their findings secret. To do this, they formed a plan to send operatives into retail stores posing as customers, who would then buy back as much Motrin as possible. However, consumers who had already bought the defective Motrin would not be notified in any way of the problems.

Johnson & Johnson then hired Inmar to carry out this clandestine design, rejecting bids from several companies to handle the recall openly. Inmar promptly mobilized its employees and contractors, instructing them:

"You should simply 'act' like a regular customer while making these purchases. THERE MUST BE NO MENTION OF THIS BEING A RECALL OF THE PRODUCT! If asked, simply state that your employer is checking the distribution chain of this product and needs to have some of it purchased for the project."

Approximately five thousand convenience stores were searched in this fashion. The first two hundred and fifty stores yielded 595 vials, but the actual number of defective Motrin remaining on the market was dramatically higher - in one state alone, seven hundred and eighty-seven packages remained missing even after Inmar's feeble attempts to rectify the situation.

The recall was finally made public in February of 2010, over a year after Johnson & Johnson became aware of the problem and over ten months after Inmar became involved in the cover-up. Congressional hearings, civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions ensued, but though Johnson & Johnson was made to take responsibility for its misconduct, Inmar escaped any meaningful penalty.

Now, five years after the federal firestorm subsided, Inmar is still in the pharmaceutical returns business, a job mostly composed of disposing waste, juggling returned or expired merchandise, and managing recalls. On its website, it proudly boasts that it provides these services to twenty-four thousand retail pharmacies (out of approximately twenty-eight thousand in the country), giving it control over 86% of the market. As Inmar has proven in the past, this anticompetitive situation could prove injurious to consumers which may never have heard its name, but still entrust it with their well-being every time they purchase the simplest of medications.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.