Arsenic in Candy: The Lawsuits No One Is Talking About
Recent headlines about arsenic found in popular candies have sparked widespread concern among parents, manufacturers, and legal professionals alike. But what do these findings actually mean — scientifically and legally?
In this episode of Legal Owl, host John Brocas is joined by Dr. Alex LeBeau, PhD — toxicologist, exposure scientist, and expert witness — to unpack the data behind Florida’s recent arsenic testing results and the public response that followed.
Rather than fueling fear, this conversation focuses on context: how toxicology data should be interpreted, the difference between detection and risk, and why methodology, thresholds, and exposure pathways matter when evaluating potential harm. Dr. LeBeau explains why the presence of a substance alone does not automatically indicate danger — and how misinterpretation of scientific data can lead to regulatory confusion, public anxiety, and increased litigation risk.
This episode also explores the legal implications for manufacturers and counsel, including:
- How disclosure, testing methods, and documentation factor into product liability claims
- Why plaintiff and defense strategies often diverge on scientific interpretation
- The role of expert witnesses in clarifying complex exposure data
- What proactive manufacturers and legal teams should be doing now to reduce long-term risk
Important context:
This episode does not claim that candy is unsafe, nor does it assert wrongdoing by regulators or manufacturers. Instead, it examines how scientific findings are communicated, how risk is assessed in toxicology, and how incomplete or decontextualized data can create legal and reputational consequences.
For lawyers, expert witnesses, compliance professionals, and manufacturers navigating product safety, regulatory scrutiny, or emerging exposure claims, this episode offers a grounded, thoughtful framework for understanding what the data really says — and what it doesn’t.
Links referenced in this episode:
Transcript
Good morning, Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, wherever you are.
Speaker A:This is John.
Speaker A:This is Legal Owl, brought to you by Help Lawyer.
Speaker A:I don't know about you, but I've got a sweet tooth.
Speaker A:Always have done.
Speaker A:I like sweet things.
Speaker A:And so I have recently come across an article, actually, I first saw it on news.
Speaker A:I'm sure you guys knew it, about arsenic in candy, arsenic and food.
Speaker A:And it's kind of terrifying because we think about arsenic as this deadly poison.
Speaker A:And so I realized that this is a potential legal issue.
Speaker A:This is a potential problem because then I came across an episode with My guest today, Dr. Alex Lebow, exposure consultant, who challenged the data that the state of Florida released regarding the arsenic found in candy.
Speaker A:And then of course, the Candy Association, USA Candy association, challenged that as well.
Speaker A:And so I thought this would be a great opportunity to bring Dr. LeBeau on here because he's one of our experts in the legal network to talk about this and to talk about the potential that this fallout could have.
Speaker A:And is arsenic infern is the data, right?
Speaker A:My guest today is Dr. Alex LeBeau of Exposure Consultant, who is a toxicologist, an expert toxicologist and an expert witness, has been involved in many different legal cases.
Speaker A:And so today I want to bring him here so that we can discuss this in depth and what it means for the legal industry.
Speaker A:Let's bring him on.
Speaker B:You've entered Legal L, where sharp legal minds meet the power of strategic intuitive intelligence and inner awareness.
Speaker B:Hosted by someone that is a veteran, an author, and is an individual experienced in specialist security operations.
Speaker B:Strategic intuitive intelligence and transformational psychology.
Speaker B:This is not your typical legal podcast.
Speaker B:We explore what most lawyers never say out loud.
Speaker B:Burnout, grief, inner dissonance, and what it really takes to sustain a legal career with clarity, purposes and personal alignment.
Speaker B:Alongside powerful solo insights.
Speaker B:You'll hear thought provoking conversations with members of the Help Lawyer network, Lawyers, legal support professionals, and expert witnesses sharing real stories from the front lines.
Speaker B:This is the space where law meets what's rarely talked about.
Speaker B:Welcome to Legal Al.
Speaker B:Where wisdom meets the law and strategic intuitive intelligence guides the way.
Speaker A:Alex, how are you, my friend?
Speaker C:I'm well, thank you for having me today.
Speaker A:So this is quite a scary thing, right?
Speaker A:I saw this in the news.
Speaker A:I kind of panic.
Speaker A:I thought, oh my God, you know, chocolate.
Speaker A:I'm sure all of us have sweet tooth, you know, at some point in our lives.
Speaker A:I like a little sweet now and again.
Speaker A:And this is quite a worrying concern to think that we have arsenic in our food substances or in our candy.
Speaker A:But you recently released an episode and a press release challenging the data from the state of Florida.
Speaker A:And before we get into that, I want you to give our listeners a little bit about your background and why you are the expert to talk about this and what this means for the legal industry.
Speaker C:Sure.
Speaker C:No, I appreciate that.
Speaker C:Yeah, I mean, the news press release and information from the data and arsenic caught, I think a lot of people off guard.
Speaker C:So about myself, I am a toxicologist, have a PhD in toxicology and risk assessment.
Speaker C:I am also a board certified industrial hygienist.
Speaker C:Essentially, it's.
Speaker C:I'm an exposure scientist.
Speaker C:I evaluate exposures to chemicals and biological organisms and I identify the risks associated with those exposures based on what, what is getting into the body and how it's interacting with the body.
Speaker C:And I've dealt with arsenic before in my career and seeing this data as it was presented and as it was released was surprising because it's obviously a part of.
Speaker C:And I commend this, you know, hey, let's get information out to the public.
Speaker C:I think that's a great thing.
Speaker C:But without the additional context, it makes it difficult to interpret, which is why it kind of caught me off guard.
Speaker A:Yeah, I kind of noticed that as well.
Speaker A:I mean, I listened to your episode on the Exposure Scientist podcast and you kind of challenged it.
Speaker A:Because we think about arsenic, we think of it as a deadly poison.
Speaker A:I mean, we've all seen the James Bond movies and all this where, you know, the agent gets poisoned.
Speaker A:There's an arsenic poison, there's a bottle of arsenic.
Speaker A:We've used it in so many films and different procedures.
Speaker A:But from your podcast you say that it's one of the most abundant elements in the table, of the elements that exist everywhere.
Speaker A:So it then makes me think, okay, so we're surrounded by arsenic.
Speaker A:We possibly have been exposed to it in so many ways.
Speaker C:We're exposed to many things every day and we just don't even think about it.
Speaker C:So, yeah, arsenic, I think, is a 20th most abundant chemical or constituent on the earth's surface.
Speaker C:So when you think about, well, am I being exposed to arsenic?
Speaker C:I mean, just interacting with life itself is going to expose you to some amount of arsenic.
Speaker C:It's what we do in toxicology and risk assession exposure science is, what were you exposed to?
Speaker C:How much of it was the exposure?
Speaker C:Did the exposure get into your body, how much got into your body and how much interacted with your body?
Speaker C:And just saying, you know, we're exposed to arsenic, it's just telling.
Speaker C:It's making a statement without Having the story available.
Speaker C:It's, you know, there's tolerance levels that are established for arsenic in many different scenarios.
Speaker C:Because it's not that there's.
Speaker C:There.
Speaker C:There is a level that.
Speaker C:Oh, yeah, you should be in taking arsenic.
Speaker C:No, that's not the case.
Speaker C:It's.
Speaker C:We've done studies, we've done analysis, we've done risk assessments to say arsenic up to this level causes no adverse health effects.
Speaker C:We don't see anything in the laboratory data, we don't see anything in animal studies or in human studies to say arsenic above maybe a certain level based on the route of exposure is going to cause harm.
Speaker C:So saying that something has just arsenic in it without understanding the additional context or details is difficult to make any interpretive analysis.
Speaker C:Just stating that, well, we found arsenic.
Speaker C:All right, tell us more.
Speaker A:Yeah, I also read, because you sent that to me as well, the statement and what the Candy Association, USA Candy association has said as well.
Speaker A:And let's face it, when we come across this news, this data, and I think potentially, and I'm gonna maybe ask you to support this, do we feel that the state of Florida has created undue concern because every kid in America loves candy?
Speaker A:I mean, let's face it.
Speaker A:So when mothers and fathers and youngsters, you know, they see this, this must terrify them.
Speaker A:And again, it also opens us out to.
Speaker A:Is this a potential legal issue that could escalate because of the ignorance in the data?
Speaker C:Well, yeah.
Speaker C:I mean, you think about it used to be when we were kids, you had to look out for razor Blaze in your candy at Halloween.
Speaker C:Now, are we going to have to worry about which candy has arsenic in it?
Speaker C:You know, when you sit and sort it, you know, well, this is what state of Florida says has arsenic.
Speaker C:I mean, it's makes it very hard for.
Speaker C:I'll say, and even for myself to want to look at it.
Speaker C:But from the general public or population going, well, what does this mean?
Speaker C:My kid loves to eat.
Speaker C:You know, nerds, candy or whatever the candy is, you know, is that something I have to worry about?
Speaker C:Do I have to limit their intake?
Speaker C:And to say that the data is presented out there from, you know, just getting stuff off the shelf, There are procedures, there are ways to do that, especially for candy manufacturers.
Speaker C:You know, when you.
Speaker C:When you manufacture a food product, product, you know, whether it's the raw ingredients and that may be the final finished product, you have to say, okay, we have specifications that we have to meet.
Speaker C:We have tolerance limits that are based on what's reasonable for either a risk assessment or reasonable from what we can process this material to come out to be that says, you know, we aren't supposed to have any exceeds of these levels in, in this, whether it be heavy metals, whether it be, you know, bacteria, whatever it could be.
Speaker C:You know, manufacturers typically have tolerance levels that are established that are part of their process.
Speaker C:And when you think about the process and FDA and regulation of food products or food ingredients and it does not seem to me, and I could be mistaken, I don't know, I don't have all the information that, and not having the information is the big problem at the state of Florida even reached out to any of the manufacturers to say, hey, do you have tolerance levels?
Speaker C:Have you done your own internal analysis?
Speaker C:Can you share that data?
Speaker C:This is what we're seeing.
Speaker C:What are you seeing?
Speaker C:Let's compare our numbers.
Speaker C:It doesn't seem like that was done.
Speaker C:It was, seemed like these numbers were just put out there and, and, and leave it open to whoever wants to take a look at it.
Speaker C:And you're going to have a lot of parents that are scared when you see this and go, oh my God, have I been poisoning my child?
Speaker C:I've been feeding them arsenic.
Speaker C:I feel horrible.
Speaker C:But we don't know anything about the arsenic data.
Speaker C:We don't know any of the, you know, I talk about this, I don't, we don't know any of the laboratory methods that were done were the appropriate laboratory methods.
Speaker C:And I say appropriate, hey, you know what?
Speaker C:Maybe when they submitted these samples to the lab, they said, well, we don't want to, we don't want to find out if there's arsenic at first physiologically relevant levels.
Speaker C:Meaning if, if you were to put it in your body, you're thinking your stomach acids, you're thinking your body temperature, does it come out at those levels?
Speaker C:Or do they just send it to the lab and say do your worst and see what's in there.
Speaker C:We all know there's nothing, none, none of the raw lab reports have been released as far as I can see.
Speaker A:It sounds like to me from what you're saying and what you're describing as well is that the state of Florida has a lot to answer for because they've created this sensational and I almost liken it to conspiracy theory type idea now where this could spread and get worse and we have an element of truth in something, but then it changes all the time.
Speaker A:So they've got a lot to answer for.
Speaker A:And I guess now my question is where does this leave the manufacturers?
Speaker A:Because there will be at Some point as well.
Speaker A:You know, there's going to be a legal case, there's going to be a legal fallout from this.
Speaker C:I'm sure.
Speaker C:I mean, I get contacted often and I have conversations with people often about, I do product safety assessments and I'll have conversations with either manufacturers or attorneys to say, hey, we are being sued because they state that this product is, this constituent is in our product.
Speaker C:And they, they say that we haven't disclosed it, but we don't even see that it's in there and we don't know the method they're using.
Speaker C:And this just goes and feeds into this, this thought process of, you know, it's the lack of, I'll say, disclosure that is supposedly getting them in trouble.
Speaker C:But if they don't know that it's even in there, if they're using a method that is not relevant for the analysis, it's going to cause lots of problems.
Speaker C:Of course it's going to get them, you know, get them tagged not only from a, a, maybe a potential liability standpoint, but just, you know, it's going to impact their sales, it's going to impact the revenue.
Speaker C:Because people are, are going to look at this data with, again, without context and then say, I don't know if I want to be touching this stuff.
Speaker C:You know, I don't.
Speaker C:Maybe, maybe we just get rid of everything.
Speaker C:Maybe we don't buy this candy anymore.
Speaker C:But again, I'm not saying, listen, no one says, hey, let's go out there and buy, buy arsenic candy.
Speaker C:But it needs to be contextualized.
Speaker C:It, you know, when I'm doing my risk assessment processes, I look at saying, okay, well, how much of this do I eat a year?
Speaker C:What are the levels?
Speaker C:You know, what, what, what are the levels telling me even potentially can look at the different forms of arsenic if you're not aware there are different, all those different formations of arsenic that can occur.
Speaker C:If you don't know, and you could probably do this, you know, there are threshold levels of arsenic that are in water.
Speaker C:You know, if you go look at the Safe Water Drinking act from epa, it says, you know, arsenic has a maximum contaminant level and MCL says not to exceed.
Speaker C:I don't remember, I don't want to say the number.
Speaker C:I don't remember it.
Speaker C:It may be four parts per million, but I don't recall specifically.
Speaker C:They look at that and say, listen, we're under that.
Speaker C:You know, it's per epa.
Speaker C:It's, it's a safe level.
Speaker C:It's, it's what they have determined to be safe.
Speaker C:You know, we obviously want it to be zero, but knowing that it's everywhere on the earth's surface, there's going to be some that is in the water.
Speaker C:So, you know, is this, you can even go look at your local water quality reports for your local utility water utility.
Speaker C:If you're in a large surface area, it'll probably show an analysis of arsenic levels in there and show what they are.
Speaker C:So to say that it's, it's not in things we eat other things, other food that has arsenic in it.
Speaker C:Sweet potatoes have it, apples have it.
Speaker C:Nothing different.
Speaker C:I'll say root vegetables, because I was going to grow on the ground.
Speaker A:Because I was going to ask you that, Alex, because this data and what has been released by the state of Florida is targeted candy.
Speaker A:But from your, and from your episode, you talk about two different types of arsenic and how it is so abundant in the ground and everything else.
Speaker A:So I then think, well, it's got to be in so many other elements in my food.
Speaker C:It is.
Speaker C:So, and that goes into the other question of okay, was did the analysis that the state of Florida do take into consideration arsenic from other sources and then say based on all the arsenic you may be exposed to during the year, this is how many pieces of candy that you may safely ingest from this one type per year?
Speaker C:We don't know because that, that process, that risk assessment process, those inputs that go into the risk assessment, I can't find them.
Speaker C:I don't see that they've been released.
Speaker C:So it's like saying, you know, I, I, I can, I can tell you something's danger has a, has a certain level in it, but I can't tell you if it's a risk or not because I have no idea what assessment process they used.
Speaker C:I, it's not clear at all.
Speaker C:And that's what makes this difficult and that's what makes interpreting this difficult.
Speaker C:And this is why, you know, there's going to be people that are hounding and say, man, these companies never disclose this.
Speaker C:I, I'm, I, I feel bad, I feel harmed, I feel to, I'm going to sue them.
Speaker C:Well, that's great.
Speaker A:That's an important part, Alex, because when people come into the legal industry and they tend to think I've got a claim because I'm injured or I've got a claim because I got sick.
Speaker A:But I think what you're inferring to as well is that people can raise claims just because the data is wrong or just because it hasn't been disclosed.
Speaker A:If the compound hasn't been disclosed in it, someone could say, I'm gonna, I'm gonna sue them, right?
Speaker C:And, and that's, I say, you know, if they say, oh, our product is, you know, I've seen this.
Speaker C:Our product is safe.
Speaker C:Well, it has arsenic in it.
Speaker C:Can't be safe.
Speaker C:Well, we have to contextualize.
Speaker C:There are safe levels based on exposures and thresholds and risk assessments that have been done, you know, and, but without knowing the context for anything that the state of Florida did.
Speaker C:And it's funny, if you go to their website and again, I haven't been since, I think over the weekend, if you go there and look at the, it says download the data and you click on the data link, it's just a PDF of what's on the website.
Speaker C:And it's just like, that's not the data.
Speaker C:That's just more of the same information.
Speaker C:Give me the raw data, give me the lab reports, give me your, your mathematical models that you use that's readily available everywhere else but here.
Speaker C:It's, they're just, they're nowhere to be found again, that I can see.
Speaker A:It seems to be more conspiratorial, to be honest, when you think about it, because that, that data is not, it's not legit really.
Speaker A:And they're not given the strategy or the analysis or the procedures or the efficacy or even past data.
Speaker A:And so I think there's even a potential that they have caused a firestorm that is going to grow because of this.
Speaker A:And you've suggested, I mean, you're open to having the state.
Speaker A:I can't remember his name, but Dr. Whoever actually released it to come on your podcast and discuss it, because this.
Speaker C:Is important, I'm happy to have a conversation with anybody about it.
Speaker C:And if they are working on that or can disclose it, I'm happy for them to look at that.
Speaker C:But you think about this.
Speaker C:You have concerned parents.
Speaker C:Maybe they're, they don't know who to approach.
Speaker C:They don't, typically, people don't know who a toxicologist is.
Speaker C:They don't know, you know, how to reach out to exposure scientists.
Speaker C:So who's the person who deals with health and their children most of their life is their pediatrician.
Speaker C:So they may take these data to their pediatrician and maybe their, their pediatrician is familiar with how to kind of look at arsenic, understand it.
Speaker C:Or, or, or maybe they're not on the well versed in the exposure science side.
Speaker C:And they go, oh, I'd probably avoid that candy I don't know how this, you know how this is.
Speaker C:So it even creates confusion when you're dealing with your kid's primary care pediatrician that if you're trying to understand risk, they may not even know how to understand it.
Speaker C:And because the state hasn't given any, I'll say, guidance for interpreting that data, even maybe physician.
Speaker C:Again, I'm not speaking as a physician.
Speaker C:Maybe the physicians don't know how to relay the risk to the parents and it's just going to create lots of confusion and problems.
Speaker A:No, I'm going to be a bit of a devil's advocate because then someone's going to turn around and say, well, Dr. LeBeau, you're suggesting that this data is wrong, but maybe there's an issue where is there a threshold for children and a threshold for adults?
Speaker A:And then that then comes into play.
Speaker C:Typically when you do risk assessments, you do look at the, I'll say the childhood levels.
Speaker C:You know, you look at the risk from a child and risk from an adult.
Speaker C:You know, when you're looking at child, there's potential that when you're evaluating a child, there's, there's a risk kind of thought process is because they weigh less than an adult, but can still potentially intake the amount of adult, they are going to have a larger exposure per body weight.
Speaker C:And those.
Speaker C:Was, was that done here?
Speaker C:Was that assessment done or taken into consideration here?
Speaker C:Yeah, there's, there, there are potentials.
Speaker C:There are.
Speaker C:You know, one of the things that we've done some research in is, is looking at childhood exposures to arsenic and saying, oh, I do research for the University of South Florida and saying, you know, what, what are the risks for child growth outcomes?
Speaker C:Are there any risk or are there any changes?
Speaker C:And, and trying to understand again, what the state of Florida has done with this data.
Speaker C:If they had, if, if, if that information has been, had been released, it'd make this a lot easier.
Speaker C:And again, when I see something and I'm just, just stating a random number, I think one, one of them was 500 parts per billion of varsity.
Speaker C:Does that mean of, you know, did they take, and you got to think about this too.
Speaker C:Did they take one little pack of candy, you know, one inch by one inch?
Speaker C:Was this multiple ones put together?
Speaker C:Did they just go grab it off the shelf?
Speaker C:Was this an old pack?
Speaker C:Was it a new pack?
Speaker C:You know, what was the age of it?
Speaker C:Did they trace any lot numbers?
Speaker C:We have no idea what they did, what their methods were.
Speaker C:You know, when I, you know, I've done assessments before for product safety or food, I say, you know, at least a minimum.
Speaker C:Give me three samples, non consecutive lot numbers of products so we can track this.
Speaker C:Did they do three?
Speaker C:To average them to them together, did they do five?
Speaker C:I'd like to see five.
Speaker C:Did they do five?
Speaker C:Did they just do one?
Speaker C:You know, did they just base all this information on one?
Speaker C:Did they do an average?
Speaker C:What was the minimum?
Speaker C:What was the maximum?
Speaker C:And is this an average number?
Speaker C:We have no idea because none of that's been released.
Speaker A:Why do you think they released, why do you think they released it the way that they did?
Speaker A:I mean, surely someday at the state would have realized, okay, we're going to release this data.
Speaker A:This is going to create a firestorm.
Speaker A:Why do that?
Speaker A:Because they know I'm going to go on to the legal side in a minute, but they know that this is going to cause issue.
Speaker C:I would hope that they knew that this was going to cause issue.
Speaker C:Listen, I think a lot of this and as far as I understand is release, as far as, you know, the, the health initiative across the country, hey, it's better to have information and that's great.
Speaker C:I'm all for having information, but the information has to have context.
Speaker C:You know, interpreting this is, is, is not for the, is easy to do.
Speaker C:It's.
Speaker C:You have to understand what's going into it.
Speaker C:And maybe their thought process was, hey, if we just release a simple number, it'll be easy for parents to look at this simple number.
Speaker C:But.
Speaker C:And it is, but from a realistic risk scenario or realistic understanding, if you are, I'll say in the know, for understanding how these processes go.
Speaker C:It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker C:It's just like saying, you know, this is going to cost this one product's going to cost.
Speaker C:This one box is going to cost me $50,000 because there's $50,000 worth of equipment in there is a hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker C:Am I getting a deal or I'm being overcharged?
Speaker C:You know, I have no idea what is going into the product or what their thought process is to contextualize what the data even mean.
Speaker C:And I think they just wanted a simple data point to report.
Speaker C:And that's great for disclosure, but it takes more context, especially if you're having parents that are concerned.
Speaker C:If you're having parents that are saying, oh my God, you know, have I been feeding my children arsenic and not worry about it or caring about it?
Speaker C:What effects is this going to have?
Speaker C:And it's just, it is going to make more questions arise.
Speaker C:I think it's Going to.
Speaker C:If their thought process was, hey, this is all part of a healthy initiative, I think it's going to backfire and go, this is meaningless.
Speaker C:This is creating more problems than it is solving, in my opinion.
Speaker A:The other thing is, I want to be perfectly clear to anybody who's listening that you are a parent.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Because I want to talk a little bit about that.
Speaker A:And your wife, obviously, what did you, you're a toxicologist, so you know that potentially that the data's not right and did it make you think I'm going to stop my kid eating sweets?
Speaker A:Or did your wife think differently?
Speaker A:Did she say to you, hey, Alex, we need to take this on board.
Speaker A:I'm not giving the kid twizzlers or whatever else.
Speaker C:You know, I think, and for all the listeners, I think very simply, it's important to understand that in toxicology, the basic premise is the dose makes the poison, meaning the more that you take in of something, the more hazardous it could be.
Speaker C:So I'm just going to give a quick example of, you know, I can have, you know, five glasses of water a day and be healthy.
Speaker C:I can have 50 glasses of water a day and be drowning myself and be over exposing myself to water.
Speaker C:And that could be a toxic outcome.
Speaker C:So it's not just a constituent, it's how much you're taking into your body.
Speaker C:So it's, it's, it's, you know, as they say, everything is in moderation.
Speaker C:You know, do I want my kids to have candy all the time?
Speaker C:No.
Speaker C:Well, we try to limit that as best we can, but as you said, you know, everyone has a sweet tooth.
Speaker C:But, you know, again, am I letting my kid have, you know, some of the things that it's safe to have five pieces of this a year?
Speaker C:You know, you think about Halloween, you can five pieces of that in one night a year.
Speaker C:Yeah, right.
Speaker C:So you're like, you know, for me, it's not a realistic risk concern right now because I have no idea what those data mean.
Speaker C:I've got no clue what any of that information means.
Speaker C:So, you know, when I am doing what I'll call a tailored or specific risk assessment, I look at the individual.
Speaker C:I don't, you know, if you look at EPA's data, they say, well, a child will weigh 15 kilograms or something like that.
Speaker C:I look at the individual child or individual adult and say, what is their actual weight?
Speaker C:So we can get the actual risk for that one individual or for intake.
Speaker C:For right now, I'm not concerned because I don't know what those Data mean if I cannot readily interpret a data point, then it has no context for me.
Speaker C:I want the information now.
Speaker C:The information was released and it seems reasonable, I may reevaluate, but I need all the inputs, all the background information.
Speaker C:I need everything for me to.
Speaker A:You need all the intelligence, you need everything.
Speaker A:The cycle, you need that cycle to complete.
Speaker C:Right?
Speaker C:For me to make an informed scientific decision.
Speaker C:And I think it's important, you know, and I always emphasize this is.
Speaker C:Science is not fast.
Speaker C:Science does not happen quickly.
Speaker C:You don't look at something in five minutes and go, well, my scientific opinion or my scientific finding is this.
Speaker C:You got to take all the information in, you have to look at it, even the lab reports.
Speaker C:I would probably take a day or two looking at lab reports, see what they did, see what methods they used, did they have quality assurance, qa, QC checks on the data?
Speaker C:How did that, how were those data reported?
Speaker C:Was there a narrative in there, you know, going to the whole thing?
Speaker C:Was it done at a, I'll say a laboratory, in an accredited laboratory or what laboratory was it, was it a state lab, was it a contract lab?
Speaker C:All those things I would go into my interpretation and my understanding.
Speaker C:It's not a quick 5 minute, 10 minute, maybe even an hour process.
Speaker C:Science is not fast.
Speaker C:And for me to make a rast decision based on a couple of part per billion data points, I've got nothing to base that on.
Speaker A:Now primarily I want to get on to what the manufacturers and the suite manufacturers need to be thinking about.
Speaker A:But before I do that, it also seems like to me, you know, in the legal industry we're going to have lawyers that are ready to jump on the bandwagon and sue the companies.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Because it happens all the time in the legal field.
Speaker A:Something like this happens as a class action lawsuit.
Speaker A:Something goes on, somebody approaches one lawyer and before you know it, there's multitude of law firms that are actually launching these lawsuits.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And so that's a potential threat where there's now a plaintiff issue here.
Speaker A:Obviously.
Speaker A:Now I want to talk about there's an element where you as an expert is going to be helping on the defence side.
Speaker A:What do lawyers on the defence need to consider?
Speaker A:And then let's talk about the manufacturers because at the end of the day it's these guys that are going to suffer.
Speaker C:Sure.
Speaker C:And again, not speaking as an attorney, I'm not an attorney, but you know.
Speaker A:Legal disclaimer there, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker C:I always like to look at this from both sides.
Speaker C:Listen, I can completely understand people seeing the data and saying, let's go get these companies or giving out safe products.
Speaker C:I get it.
Speaker C:Because without the explanation, that's what we've got.
Speaker A:Mm.
Speaker C:It's easy to do because, you know, well, well, the state of Florida says this.
Speaker C:That's, you know, you may look at that as an authoritative body.
Speaker C:Yeah, must be right.
Speaker C:State of Florida did it, you know, and it's supported by.
Speaker C:I forgot how many different state organizations are listed on the website.
Speaker C:Says, man, look at all these places.
Speaker C:They support this.
Speaker C:So I get it, it makes complete sense.
Speaker C:But from the other side, typically I'll say a manufacturer should have all this data in house.
Speaker C:They should.
Speaker C:You know, I always like to tell people, you know, again, this is part of the process.
Speaker C:You're setting up specifications for your food ingredients.
Speaker C:You have to look at your certificate of analysis coa from the ingredients that you're getting in, do your own in house analysis, which you probably should be doing and you should if from, from I'll say the defense side, make sure that the manufacturers have this information.
Speaker C:Or hey, I've always said you would rather know what's in your product before someone knocks on the door and tells you what's in your product without you knowing know what's in your product, understand what's in it.
Speaker C:Again, there should be these tolerances that are established.
Speaker C:When you go talk to the food manufacturers, they should say, yeah, I've got years worth of data on this.
Speaker C:We've got not only data from our food raw ingredient suppliers, like a coa.
Speaker C:We verify the coa.
Speaker C:You know, it's not only believing what the cert is on the certificate analysis or what comes in there, but you need to verify.
Speaker C:The manufacturer should be verifying that as well, saying, okay, our analysis or our methods, you know, agree with what they are giving us and saying, yeah, it makes sense.
Speaker C:This is, they're.
Speaker C:They're correct on what's on their coa and then goes into the manufacturer, your product, your process, what.
Speaker C:What steps are you analyzing?
Speaker C:Are you using water as an ingredient?
Speaker C:Are you ensuring that your water is filtered or removing any additional constituents?
Speaker C:Is it, you know, what processes are in place for that?
Speaker C:You know, these all go into making safe products.
Speaker C:And have they had, you know, some products will.
Speaker C:May have what?
Speaker C:Again, I alluded to it earlier, grass generally recognizes safe food ingredients have their products have grass or their ingredients have grass.
Speaker C:Is that done in house?
Speaker C:Are the data supportive of that?
Speaker A:And explain to people what that may not understand what grass is.
Speaker C:Sure.
Speaker C:Generally recognized as safe as an FDA process for identifying food ingredients.
Speaker C:Either through scientific means or just kind of general use has been used for, for a long time.
Speaker C:Historical perspective use.
Speaker C:If it's, if it's grasped by scientific means, there's, there's ways to do it.
Speaker C:You know, animal studies based on other things, looking at safe tolerance intakes and levels.
Speaker C:And then a scientific panel or committee comes together, they look at all the data and say, yes, we agree with this is safe.
Speaker C:And those data can be held in house.
Speaker C:They can be notified to fda.
Speaker C:Now, I think that process is getting updated because of the, and I think what part of the arsenic release was, was the, from what I understand, the Make America Healthy Again initiative.
Speaker C:I think the GRAS update or GRAS process is being updated based on that.
Speaker C:But I'll say historically or recently, the process is you can notify FDA of your GRAS determinations, but they can also be held in house, making sure that those data are in house.
Speaker C:They are supportive, that they are scientifically rigorous.
Speaker C:And they, the tolerances that you establish for your specifications are met and you have analytical data often being collected to support those data.
Speaker C:Because again, if you have scientific data with the method listed, you know, following, I'll say FDA approved.
Speaker C:I don't say approved methods, but typical FDA methods for food ingredient analysis.
Speaker C:And you have Florida data that says maybe your arsenic, I'm just throwing random numbers out there.
Speaker C:Maybe your arsenic levels are ten or a hundred times higher than what the ingredient or the food manufacturer has.
Speaker C:Understanding why there's a difference.
Speaker C:Was the same method used?
Speaker C:Was the, you know, was something done incorrectly?
Speaker C:What was.
Speaker C:Was the risk assessment done?
Speaker C:Understanding where the differences are and pointing that out.
Speaker C:I think it's going to be crucial for the ingredient manufacturers saying that's not a realistic number based on our analysis.
Speaker C:Following established methods.
Speaker A:This reminds me, I could be wrong here.
Speaker A:This reminds me of something that just everything you're talking about and challenging the data and trying to get the processes and everything.
Speaker A:Now, anybody who's listening out there, I could be wrong with this, but I feel that there was a case recently and still ongoing with.
Speaker A:Let me ask you this.
Speaker A:First of all, actually, is there arsenic in salt?
Speaker C:I don't think that there should be, but it depends on where the salt is from.
Speaker C:There's lots of different salts.
Speaker C:You know, there's, there's pink salt, there's.
Speaker C:It may all depend on the salt source.
Speaker C:I don't know.
Speaker C:I'd have to look at the individual.
Speaker C:If you think of, I think, general things, probably not.
Speaker C:Table salt, probably not, but maybe a little less.
Speaker A:I think There's a case that's recent.
Speaker A:This Celtic Salt here in North Carolina is a big company.
Speaker A:Celtic Salt is known throughout the world.
Speaker A:It is respected.
Speaker A:Now, I could be wrong, but I do think there had been.
Speaker A:But there still is an ongoing legal case.
Speaker A:And I think it's trace arsenic levels in the salt.
Speaker A:And I think the point that you're making as well is that we have arsenic in the ground.
Speaker A:It's most abundant in the table of elements.
Speaker A:Now they've got a case on and it might not be arsenic.
Speaker A:I think it is.
Speaker A:I do believe it is.
Speaker A:I did look at the case a little while ago and I think I invited them on to the podcast to talk about it.
Speaker A:But that kind of reminds me then, because now you've got a company that's well respected that has now gone through a potential legal lawsuit.
Speaker A:So where does it stop?
Speaker A:Because you mentioned earlier on we got arsenic in potatoes, we got arsenic in.
Speaker A:So the risk there is quite high.
Speaker A:So should a manufacturer be looking at being proactive now because of this release and start to do risk assessments to be ready for what's inevitable?
Speaker C:I'll say generally manufacturers typically do some kind of assessment.
Speaker C:They should.
Speaker C:They do some kind of understanding of what the, the natural intake would be for individuals and the population saying, listen, this is a safe amount for them to be ingesting of this ingredient.
Speaker C:Now, you know, should they be analyzing for this these typically they was heavy metals would be part of their specification.
Speaker C:Now, I'm not going to say that's not a blanket statement.
Speaker C:It's a generalization.
Speaker C:You know, typically these are one thing you have to consider here, and this is, I think been popping up for other constituents just beyond arsenic and other things is as time goes on, as I said, science is not fast, but it is progressive.
Speaker C:Meaning as time goes on where once we may not have detected.
Speaker C:I'm going to use arsenic here, we may not have detected arsenic.
Speaker C:Our methods get more sensitive that we can detect arsenic at lower and lower numbers.
Speaker C: od ingredient, Whereas now in: Speaker C:So you have to think about that, hey, again, is it the technology advances.
Speaker A:So the fear is still there because it's still that connection.
Speaker C:Right?
Speaker C:Is it the presence of the arsenic that is now detectable, whereas 10 years ago it was not, versus the realistic risks that it presents at being at that low level?
Speaker C:Because again, if you're saying, well, it's not in our product, our analysis hasn't Detected it and other people, maybe it's a research organization at a university or something that says, well, we've established a new method.
Speaker C:We could detected at 10 times or 100 times lower than we used to.
Speaker C:A part per trillion, something like that.
Speaker C:How is that going to impact you?
Speaker C:Saying, well, we didn't used to be able to see it that low, but now we can, and now it's in our food product.
Speaker C:What does that mean?
Speaker C:So is it realistic for a food manufacturer to do a risk assessment saying, listen, even if it was right now, even if it was found at that low level, is it going to be a realistic risk?
Speaker C:And our risk assessment says up to, you know, x amount of this is not a realistic human health risk for exposure and ingestion of arsenic.
Speaker C:And I think that's something that every manufacturer should probably do because we're not regressing in science.
Speaker C:We're.
Speaker C:It's going forward and there's going to be more and more things that we didn't used to be able to see or detect that we're now going to be able.
Speaker A:Do you think manufacturers are going to sweep this under the rug until it happens?
Speaker C:I don't want to say a blanket statement.
Speaker C:I say there are.
Speaker C:And working in a number of different industries, there are.
Speaker C:It's almost like a bell curve in anything.
Speaker C:There are manufacturers that are going to do the ultimate go to the nth degree.
Speaker C:There are manufacturers that are a lot in the middle that are going to do, you know, and the adequate amount.
Speaker C:And there's some at the end that are going to go, well, let's do things until we're caught.
Speaker C:I'm not saying that's anybody, but there are there.
Speaker C:There's a wide variety, like any corporation or any organization or anyone saying, listen, there's one that's going to do way more than necessary.
Speaker C:There's some that are going to do the.
Speaker C:The adequate amount and some that are going to do the not enough.
Speaker C:And I think it needs to be pushing more towards the be proactive again.
Speaker C:This goes to know what's in your product before someone tells you what's in your product kind of scenario.
Speaker A:Absolutely.
Speaker A:And I think anybody, just as a legal disclaimer, anybody listening out there, especially your attorneys that may be on plaintiff side of things, if you come up against Alex in one of these cases and you decide to maybe file a Dobert motion, go back in this episode five minutes so they can listen to the whole context, because we know that gets taken out a lot of the time.
Speaker A:So here's the other thing I want to kind of talk about where you just mentioned there that I want to jump on.
Speaker A:You see, there's going to be manufacturers that go to the eighth degree.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Where does it leave the smaller manufacturers?
Speaker A:Because they're not going to go to the eighth degree, but they need to do something to be proactive against a potential lawsuit because they're small companies that may not survive through this.
Speaker C:You know what's interesting, and it's interesting that you say that is I have seen small companies go to the far degree.
Speaker C:You know, they.
Speaker C:Oh, really?
Speaker C:You talk to them.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:If you talk to them knowledgeably about the risk and say, listen, this is what you need to do.
Speaker C:Because they may not, if there is someone who comes and sues them later on, they may not be able to ride that wave, whereas larger manufacturers may be able to.
Speaker C:I'm not saying that larger manufacturers would do that.
Speaker C:Oh, yeah.
Speaker C:But there are, there are some that take that into consideration.
Speaker C:And, and, and obviously, and I don't want to say this is food, but I've seen others, you know, if I'm one that I'm thinking of recently is kind of a product safety and saying, listen, if you don't do this now, this is like, this is potential, what could happen to you in the future?
Speaker C:And they've, they've gone back and say, maybe we don't want to make this product if we don't have enough capital now, or make it now, if we don't have enough capital to do this right initially, then maybe we need to wait for the right time or maybe we're going to shelve this until it's the right time that we can do everything to prepare ourselves for the future.
Speaker C:So it really all depends on how well you can communicate the risks to the manufacturer, whether the base, small, medium or large, and have them have somebody who's receptive understand what the.
Speaker C:They could potentially be up against.
Speaker C:As far as not only, not only from potential, I'll say people suing them, but, you know, regulatory ramifications of it as well, saying, listen, if you do this and you don't have all these ducks in a row, then you could get the hammer from the ftc.
Speaker C:The EPA may send you a letter, you know, FDA may come and, and look at your manufacturing process because, you know, for example, if you're, and this is beyond this episode, but you know, if you're an, if you're a facility that is manufacturing food, you may have to have an FDA inspection of your facility to ensure it's compliance with all these good manufacturing practices and everything.
Speaker C:If you don't even have the ability to do that at point A, then there's no point to getting the point D or F if you can't get over the initial humps and do everything that has to be done in the process.
Speaker C:So it really all depends on having a receptive individual.
Speaker C:And, you know, and it could be, you know, I've seen it where, you know, they may reach out to counsel and say, listen, can you speak to us about our risks here and what we need to do?
Speaker C:And it may take a combination of, you know, a legal counsel or legal counsel and an expert discussing the issue and then approaching them and saying, listen, these are the pluses, these are the minuses.
Speaker C:It's up to you as the owner to do your own risk assessment on what you want to do.
Speaker C:But this is what is should be done.
Speaker C:And that's a, that's definitely a role that I've, I've seen before in discussions with, you know, either in house counsel or outside counsel, in discussions with people saying, is this even worth doing right now?
Speaker C:Because explaining all the risks, the pluses and the minuses based on small or medium or large groups, you know, that's.
Speaker A:A beautiful segue, Alex, because I was thinking there as you were talking, is that where do we go now in the legal industry with this?
Speaker A:Should lawyers be looking at being also more proactive?
Speaker A:Not just the manufacturers, but should the lawyers, should the council be going to their potential clients and saying, hey, we could foresee a potential issue, let's have a look at, let's bring in an expert, let's have a look at a risk and prepare ourselves.
Speaker C:You know, it's.
Speaker C:If I'll say potentially, yes, you know, it depends on, again, the size of the organization, whether it's small, medium or large.
Speaker C:You know, medium to larger ones are, from what my experience is, are going to have in house counsel.
Speaker C:It's going to give them some guidance.
Speaker C:You know, they may be the ones saying, hey, we need to approach outside counsel that has more, I'll say, outside knowledge in the vast scope and sphere of things than we do, I'll say segmented here internally.
Speaker C:And I think it's worthwhile having those conversations and getting ahead of a lot of different issues because again, things like this, like the arsenic, things that are going to be in, I'll say product safety, where, you know, I've seen and heard of, where people are just submitting things to labs and saying, tell me what's in There and then getting a report, and then the report again may not be applicable to the scenario that's out there.
Speaker C:But you, it's almost like you have to presume this is going to happen for your product.
Speaker C:And how are you going to get ahead of it?
Speaker C:Because that's where everything going.
Speaker C:Now, is that going to happen for everything all the time?
Speaker C:No.
Speaker C:Is there going to be some, I'll say, process or safety assessments that are going to be done?
Speaker C:Maybe they're recommended.
Speaker C:That may not turn into anything in the next five years.
Speaker C:Yeah, but maybe in the next 15 or 20 years it will.
Speaker C:So you may have to have the data, you know, now, if you don't already, to get ready for 15 to 20 years from now, because these processes and these thoughts are going to go that way.
Speaker C:There's, there's this, there's this.
Speaker C: around getting into it in the: Speaker A:I think that's an important distinction.
Speaker A: where the data's gone back to: Speaker A:Now, I think that's an important distinction for you to make to get ahead of the game now because you could be looking at this 10, 15 years down the line, right.
Speaker C:And understanding of this and making that course correction.
Speaker C:If there is something in your data, be like, hey, you know, making a course correction, saying, let's get ahead of it.
Speaker C:Let's make that change now.
Speaker C:Let's not have a bunch of meetings.
Speaker C:Let's not, you know, let's, let's generate data.
Speaker C:Don't, don't say let's.
Speaker C:Let's, let's wait for someone else to generate it for us.
Speaker C:Generate the data, understand where your risks are and communicate that.
Speaker C:Be like, listen, if there is no risk, great, maybe even publish that saying, listen, the state of Florida says there's a risk.
Speaker C:Here's our data, here's our lab reports.
Speaker C:We say that there's not.
Speaker C:Let the state of Florida say that there is or somebody else say that there is based on our release of information.
Speaker C:Let them release their supportive information.
Speaker A:Do you think the state.
Speaker A:But actually, before I jump onto this, I recently had an interview with Sean Weiss, who is involved, very high level in litigation support, and he wrote an article and he said that experts need to stop, they need to be experts and not too much lawyer because some are too much lawyer.
Speaker A:But here's the thing as well, to reverse that back.
Speaker A:It's a great article.
Speaker A:The interview was great with Sean.
Speaker A:But to go back to that, lawyers need to be less expert as well because they don't understand the toxicology.
Speaker A:They need to understand the law.
Speaker A:But have you come across it where they think they understand it, but they're making matters worse because they don't understand the toxic exposure?
Speaker C:I have seen some, yes, that say that, look at the data and say, this is our interpretation of the data.
Speaker C:And I'll look at the data and say that is not my interpretation, interpretation.
Speaker C:That's not how a scientist would look at this.
Speaker C:And for those, for those, you know, they, again, that goes back to science is not fast.
Speaker C:So an attorney understanding when they say, oh, we did this done, you know, in, in a few weeks, it's going to take me a long time to get through that.
Speaker C:Understand the data, look at the raw data.
Speaker C:You know, I always say this when I'm being approached is get me in there early, get me the information early.
Speaker C:Because if you say, oh, I think the data says this, then we can have a discussion and I can educate you on, hey, the data actually says this.
Speaker C:This is how you would interpret it.
Speaker C:I can see why you would think that maybe.
Speaker C:But you need to understand this is why you're thinking that you're making assumptions that may not be true there based on what the actual study process was.
Speaker C:So, you know, again, I don't put myself out there as attorney.
Speaker C:I don't have any legal training whatsoever, but I have enough.
Speaker C:And understanding from the experience that I have is, you know, let us help you understand the science and you can, you know, do your legal thing with the scientific explanation that we provide to you to best suit your client.
Speaker A:Where does this now also leave the state of Florida?
Speaker A:Are we going to have a knock on domino effect where other states release false data or even organizations start to release data that doesn't necessarily add up?
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:And I'm not going to call, I'm not going to call the state of Florida's data false data because I don't know anything.
Speaker C:I don't know what it is.
Speaker C:It's just a data point.
Speaker C:False.
Speaker A:I'm not a scientist, so I can call it out.
Speaker C:No, no, that's fine.
Speaker C:Are we going to have other states?
Speaker C:I don't know.
Speaker C:I don't know where this initiative came from.
Speaker C:Again, I know it's the initiative, hey, we want to make people healthier.
Speaker C:We want to give information out there.
Speaker C:Yeah, I love it.
Speaker C:You know, we all want it, but is it.
Speaker C:I don't know if other states are going to do this.
Speaker C:You know, if you actually, and this is just an aside, if you go on the website, I forgot what it is, but they also have some information on, you know, baby formula as well.
Speaker C:So is this going to be a whole compendium that the state of Florida is going to release on different food products?
Speaker C:Is.
Speaker C:Is.
Speaker C:Are they looking at Florida to lead the way here on.
Speaker C:On releasing food products for children?
Speaker C:But again, what's the context for that?
Speaker C:Is.
Speaker C:Is.
Speaker C:Are.
Speaker C:Are other states going to follow?
Speaker C:I. I don't know.
Speaker C:You know, hopefully.
Speaker C:And, and, and what I'm hoping is generating our conversation and my podcast conversation, everything else is not to say that Florida got it wrong, but my want is to say Florida, tell us how you got.
Speaker C:If you look at an EPA risk assessment, it's 100 pages long, you know, it goes through the equations, it goes through the variables, it goes through the inputs, it goes through the uncertainty assessment that was done, the safety factors, what everything is based on.
Speaker C:I want the same thing from the state of Florida.
Speaker C:I think that's reasonable.
Speaker C:I think that's a reasonable expectation for us to help understand risk.
Speaker C:And if they can do that, that's great.
Speaker C:That's what I want.
Speaker C:If other states follow and they do that release as well, that's great as well.
Speaker C:I don't know if other states will.
Speaker C:This is first.
Speaker C:I haven't done an extensive search, but this is the first I've seen at least a state kind of doing this release of information.
Speaker C:I think it's commendable to want to educate, but it needs to be contextualized.
Speaker A:It needs to be done right.
Speaker A:Yeah, you need to get the context right.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker C:Get it.
Speaker C:Don't and, but don't but learn now.
Speaker C:Don't release another data set without releasing the methods that you did to get there, because you're just going to create more and more confusion as time goes.
Speaker A:On if you do this and obviously potential lawsuits and everything else.
Speaker A:And we know that baby formula has been in the news many, many times with the same kind of thing.
Speaker A:Alex, thank you for being a guest on Legal Oil today.
Speaker A:I want you to.
Speaker A:What was the final message that you would give to manufacturers first and then obviously legal counsel?
Speaker A:That they should be taken on board and what they should be thinking of right now?
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker C:For manufacturers, again, have your data, make sure that it's easily accessible a lot of times from what I've seen, you know, maybe a grass, it may be other analysis, maybe your coas, they get them, they have the laboratory, they look at them at one point and just stick them in a drawer.
Speaker C:You know, make sure you, you're tracking your data in a spreadsheet.
Speaker C:Make sure you're understanding the, where your data are to ensure this below thresholds, look at any variance in the data over time.
Speaker C:Are any of your thresholds that you've established varying?
Speaker C:What is the varying degree?
Speaker C:Make sure your data is up to date.
Speaker C:Make sure, you know, you haven't, it's been, you know, just a few days since you open that file cabinet drawer, not just a few months to make sure that you can look at the data from the state of Florida and say that doesn't match any data that we have and you can reasonably articulate that and how you are presenting your data.
Speaker C:From the legal side, this is easy for, you know, somebody say, oh, these manufacturers are poisoning people, let's go after them.
Speaker C:I get it.
Speaker C:I completely get it.
Speaker C:Because the way the data is presented indicates that.
Speaker C:Now if the data comes out to, if this is accurate data, that's an interesting discussion.
Speaker C:You know, as far as the inputs, if everything makes sense, you know, if everything doesn't make sense, you look at from the other side and say, listen, the manufacturer has this data.
Speaker C:These are the methods that they followed.
Speaker C:We've laid them all out.
Speaker C:But the state of Florida's release doesn't do that and makes no sense to the data that we have.
Speaker C:So, you know, from the, from the suing side, in that perspective, I see both sides.
Speaker C:I always like to try to see both sides and kind of go where the science, look at where the science is.
Speaker C:Is the state of Florida science more compelling or is the manufacturer's data more compelling for how they've released and how they information?
Speaker C:And you know what, And I'll be honest, I went and looked at some of the manufacturers websites.
Speaker C:Their data wasn't on there.
Speaker C:So is this something that they're going to put on their website?
Speaker C:You know, is this something to be proactive?
Speaker C:Go, hey, we've got a news release.
Speaker C:We're going to put that data on their website and fully refute the state of Florida.
Speaker C:Maybe that's an option they have too.
Speaker C:So it's just a lot of things to think about.
Speaker C:Or you know, maybe they're going to wait and say, well, we'll just wait till somebody sues us and then that data will be out there.
Speaker C:So again, I try to look at Every, everything.
Speaker C:Both sides.
Speaker C:I see both sides here, but I see from, from, I'll say the.
Speaker C:I don't want to call the state of Florida the aggressive side, but from the aggressive side, I see some data gaps, as we would call in science, that make me question what those data and those risk assessments actually mean.
Speaker A:Honestly.
Speaker A:Thank you.
Speaker A:It makes sense.
Speaker A:And I think it's important for anybody to realize out there, whether you're on the manufacturer side or your legal counsel, is that you need to be more proactive than anything else with this because obviously this is going to grow.
Speaker A:The story's already growing.
Speaker A:There's been some more reports and stuff like that, and no doubt it's going to open a flood, as you mentioned.
Speaker A:It's like if you wait too late, it's almost like complaining the horses bolted out the stable when the stable door was open.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker A:Alex, thank you for being with us on Legal Ill.
Speaker A:I'm sure you're going to be back if you want to get in touch with Alex.
Speaker A:If you're legal counsel or you're a manufacturer, you can get him on Help Lawyer.
Speaker A:You just need to look for him on there as one of our experts.
Speaker A:Or you can get him on exposure consultant consulting exposureconsulting.com, not exposure consultant and he'll be able to connect with you there.
Speaker A:Again, thank you for being with us today.
Speaker A:Ladies and gentlemen, this is John.
Speaker A:This is a Legal owl.
Speaker A:If you're an expert and you would like to be on with us, then please connect with us through helpwire.
Speaker A:And also if you're legal counsel and you want to make a connection or you want to make a connection with us, you can also contact us through Help Lawyer as well.
Speaker A:Thank you for being with us today, Alex.
Speaker A:I look forward to having you back.
Speaker A:Anne, God bless.
Speaker C:Thank you, John.
Speaker B:You've been listening to the Legal owl, where law meets the unseen layers of clarity, leadership, and inner alignment.
Speaker B:If this sparks something in you, trust that feeling.
Speaker B:Let it lead you for deeper insights, real conversation and strategic guidance.
Speaker B:Connect through the Help Lawyer network and subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker B:If you prefer a more private connection, you'll find the path when you're ready.
Speaker B:Until next time, stay present, think deeper and lead wiser.
