Bottle of Wine.... Gallo Glass vs. DTSC - Part 3

First let's start with this from WineIndustryInsight.com.

First of all, the lawsuit as filed does not — as so many mainstream media headlines screamed — allege a consumer health issue regarding toxic wine bottles containing lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals.

I have read - okay I am still reading and re-reading - the compliant and so far, that statement above appears to be true.  There is no where in the compliant where the DTSC contends the public has been put at risk or the wine within those bottle is unsafe to drink.

No public health or environmental impact, we can stop right here.  Move along folks!  Nothing to see here!

We are making sausage here, so we need to get into the kitchen to see what the big deal is.  Gallo claims:

Gallo Glass is one of the largest glass recyclers in California diverting thousands of tons of post consumer glass each year from landfills back into the glass making process.

California's DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control) claims:

The complaint...alleges the company illegally introduced dust containing lead, arsenic, cadmium and selenium into the manufacture of its wine bottles. 

And the DTSC states:

DTSC has no evidence that consuming wine stored in these bottles poses a health threat.

So we appear to have one truth in play here.  There is no public health threat contended.

Now if you follow the premise that the whole reason for having a DTSC and a hazardous waste law and its regulations is to protect public health and the environment, and there is no impact on public health or the environment, then there is no reason for a fine other than regulations were not followed.

If a tree falls in the forest....

Here is where the wacky part starts to come in.  The reason for the reg is to protect public health and the environment.  If public health and the environment is protected, then is the reg applicable?

DTSC contends that it is, apparently because, you know, its the reg.

Am I showing my bias already?  If you read my blog posts you should know where I stand.  I no longer put any value in following rules just because it is a rule.  I  have to do that, I have to recommend to do that. I have to teach people to do that.  But...I don't have to agree with that contention.

If it does not benefit public health or the environment or if it does not impact public health or the environment, forgetaboutit!

But Bowman, you say, that's like promoting anarchy!  Everyone can choose to ignore the rules!  Ignore it at your peril good sir!  If it impacts public health or the environment, well you get no sympathy from me.

But I digress.  On to making sausage!

First we need to see if the DTSC is correct, that the EP sludge Gallo Glass put back into the process is indeed a hazardous waste.  If it is not, then the dominoes stand.

Next post: Part 4