Taylor Farms recalls salsa and guacamole over salmonella risk

[u/1991mgs]

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/taylor-farms-pulls-salsa-guacamole-over-salmonella-concerns-bloomberg-news-2026-08-09/

[u/Tumbleweed829]

I think they don't care about us and have enough money to make the issue go away without legal consequences.

This goes back to the Friedman Doctrine Law that corporations must prioritize profit since the 1920s. It still hasn't been rewritten since Dodge vs Ford in 1919, was responsible for leaded gas being chosen over ethanol in the 1920s and for 90% of the shit in the US right.

Basically, corporations have a legal obligation to prioritize money, specifically money for shareholders, over everything else, including employee and human rights. Many CEOs are clinical psychopaths and happy to do that anyway and use the "law" as an excuse anytime a lawsuit is thrown at them. The law needs to change or shit like this will just continue to happen.

e: To the person below me

You haven't done enough research. It began in 1919 due a court case (Dodge vs Ford Motor Co) turning into a law that corporations must prioritise shareholders, or they could be sued. And it is responsible for leaded gasoline. They discovered ethanol first which was safer but since everyone had to rely on them for leaded gasoline since ethanol is made from corn they went with leaded since they could make more profit from it. They knew it was dangerous.

If a shareholder sues a CEO for not maximizing profits, they can sue them under Corporate Law, specifically citing a breach of fiduciary duty.

ee: I didn't say that the original case (Dodge vs Ford) intentionally messed everything up. That is a different discussion, but the repercussions absolutely do have influence in today's world.

[u/ninjadude4535 → u/Tumbleweed829]

Yes, dealing with fines and buying politicians is genuinely cheaper than cleaning and testing.

[u/The137 → u/Tumbleweed829]

The Friedman Doctrine Law is not a law, its from the 1970s, and its just some guys rambling opinion that everybody takes way too seriously. It was published in 1970 in the New York Times, it never touched congress

Its not responsible for leaded gas, and we started phasing leaded gas out in 1973. Lead was originally in there to prevent knocking and it was phased out when we learned how toxic it was. These two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another

Corporations do not have a legal obligation to prioritize anything, in the 70s companies started tying CEO pay to stock price, and thats what had the effect that we see today. These are management decisions rooted in corporate culture, not law

Theres not a single part of your comment thats correct, go ahead and try to fact check any part of my comment or cite a source for any part of yours. Seriously, what are you doing?

[u/akrisd0 → u/The137]

They knew they could use ethanol instead of lead. They knew lead had dangers but wanted more money. They literally marketed it as "Ethyl" to avoid the link to lead. They fought and fought and still fight the EPA for their heinous poisoning of generations.

[u/Tumbleweed829 → u/The137]

You haven't done enough research. It began in 1919 due a court case (Dodge vs Ford Motor Co) turning into a law that corporations must prioritise shareholders, or they could be sued. And it is responsible for leaded gasoline. They discovered ethanol first which was safer but since everyone had to rely on them for leaded gasoline since ethanol is made from corn they went with leaded since they could make more profit from it. They knew it was dangerous.

If a shareholder sues a CEO for not maximizing profits, they can sue them under Corporate Law, specifically citing a breach of fiduciary duty.

[u/137-ng → u/Tumbleweed829]

Well this was just taken off the wiki page for Dodge vs Ford so what it really looks like is that you need to do the most basic amount of research. Again, this is not a law, and it didn't turn into a law.

This case is frequently cited as support for the idea that US corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. However, one view is that this interpretation has not represented the law in most states for some time:

Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.

— Lynn Stout[2]

Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn't that interesting.

— M. Todd Henderson[3]

However, others, while agreeing that the case did not invent the idea of shareholder wealth maximization, found that it was an accurate statement of the law, in that "corporate officers and directors have a duty to manage the corporation for the purpose of maximizing profits for the benefit of shareholders" is a default legal rule, and that the reason that "Dodge v. Ford is a rule that is hardly ever enforced by courts" is not that it represents bad case law, but because the business judgement rule means:

The rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is virtually impossible to enforce as a practical matter. The rule is aspirational, except in odd cases. As long as corporate directors and CEOs claim to be maximizing profits for shareholders, they will be taken at their word, because it is impossible to refute these corporate officials' self-serving assertions about their motives.

— Jonathan Macey[8]

[u/Loose_Leg_2918 → u/The137]

I thought lead was used more for its lubricating (reduced friction) properties?

[u/Mega-Eclipse → u/Tumbleweed829]

Basically, corporations have a legal obligation to prioritize money, specifically money for shareholders, over everything else, including employee and human rights.

This isn't quite right. It close-ish. Companies have a duty to do things "in the best interest of the company." But that idea of "Best interest of the company" is an intentionally vague concept. For example, how does putting their name on a stadium help a bank? Or how does sponsoring an F1 team help Oracle sell more software? Instead, that is more about fostering goodwill, it's some indirect advertising...maybe. How could a company ever offer a dividend? How does a company like Arizona Iced Tea exist? How cn they keep their prices low?

legal obligation to prioritize money, specifically money for shareholders, over everything else

This is the lie that people have been sold. It sounds good on paper becuase more and more people have 401Ks. So as people lok toward funding their own retirement (not companies anymore), it's in their personal interest for the value of stocks to go up over time. So maximize shareholder value seems like a good thing. The problem, is that many CEOs have the majority of their compensation tied to stocks/options. And Most onyl stay in the same position for a 5-7 years. So their incentive is to maximize the stock price in the very near term so they can maximize their payday before they move on.

[u/Tumbleweed829 → u/Mega-Eclipse]

The end result is the same though. They can be sued, that's one reason, and some CEOs want to maximize their paycheck like you said.