Quality of Agricultural Produce: Consumer Preferences and Perceptions

The purpose of this research was to gain a greater insight into the characteristics and beliefs consumers draw upon while selecting the produce they purchase. Health and environmental risk perceptions of many agricultural inputs and products were also collected as well as demographic information. Nineteen produce characteristics were ranked by consumers. Locally grown produce and the country of origin were among the least important characteristics while freshness, taste/flavor, cleanliness, health value and absence of pesticides were among the most important characteristics. The survey also showed that most consumers made use of nutritional information and labeling while shopping for food and those who did, felt it aided them in making better purchase decisions. Consumers exhibited a clear preference for low-input methods of agricultural production which minimize the use of pesticides. They believed that there were health benefits to organic produce and that they would purchase more organic produce if it were more readily available. Respondents also indicated that they believed pesticides in general, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides all had significant health and environmental risks. Consumers believed on average that the use of pesticides positively contributes to the cosmetic appearance, quality, and supply of produce. Conversely, they believed that a reduction in pesticide usage would increase both the healthfulness and prices of produce. The results show where consensus and discord exist among consumers beliefs. Issues which have been the result of media campaigns and advertising such as oils used in cooking, tobacco products and alcoholic beverages show a greater degree of consensus than issues which are not often in the public spotlight. There were also areas in which consumers believed that there were inadequacies in the current produce market. Participants did not believe government food safeguards were sufficient to 2 protect public health nor did they believe the experts know enough about the long term effects of pesticide residues. The goal of this research was to provide food marketing agents with a better understanding of consumer purchase behavior, preferences and beliefs. The results are especially encouraging to those developing marketing endeavors for low input produce such as organic and IPM produce.Consumer/Household Economics,

Agency and Equity: Why Do We Blame Clients for Their Lawyers\u27 Mistakes

If you were to ask a child whether it would be fair to execute a prisoner because his lawyer had made a mistake, the answer would be no. You might even get a look suggesting that you had asked a pretty stupid question. But judges treat the issue as a hard one, relying on a theory as casually accepted in criminal justice as it is offensive to principles of moral philosophy. This theory holds that the lawyer is the client\u27s agent. What the agent does binds the principal. But clients and lawyers fit the agency model imperfectly. Agency law is built on the concepts of free choice, consent, and loyalty, and it is not unusual to find lawyer-client relationships in which some or all of these elements are missing

Agency and Equity: Why Do We Blame Clients for Their Lawyers\u27 Mistakes

If you were to ask a child whether it would be fair to execute a prisoner because his lawyer had made a mistake, the answer would be no. You might even get a look suggesting that you had asked a pretty stupid question. But judges treat the issue as a hard one, relying on a theory as casually accepted in criminal justice as it is offensive to principles of moral philosophy. This theory holds that the lawyer is the client\u27s agent. What the agent does binds the principal. But clients and lawyers fit the agency model imperfectly. Agency law is built on the concepts of free choice, consent, and loyalty, and it is not unusual to find lawyer-client relationships in which some or all of these elements are missing

Anthony Lewis and the First Amendment

It is a great privilege to be with you today to celebrate the life and work of Anthony Lewis who created modern legal journalism. I thought I would try to do three things today to help us think about Tony’s legacy. One is to sketch out what made Tony such a giant. A second is to reflect for a minute on the state of the modern Supreme Court press corps, which he essentially founded. And a third is to consider a topic Tony returned to again and again in his articles, columns and books: the role of the press in a democracy and under the rule of law. Tony believed passionately in the First Amendment but was skeptical about a special role for the institutional press in the constitutional structure, and this set him apart from most journalists and all press lawyers. I’d like to make the case that his clear-eyed and iconoclastic views in this area were a triumph of intellectual honesty over self-interest

Circuit Courts Interpret the Section 1123(a)(4) Equal Treatment Rule

(Excerpt) Under section 1123(a)(4) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), a plan of reorganization must “provide the same treatment for each claim or interest of a particular class, unless the holder of a particular claim or interest agrees to a less favorable treatment of such particular claim or interest.” The Supreme Court has never interpreted this provision, nor has the Bankruptcy Code defined the standard of equal treatment. As a result, the circuit courts have created a standard for what exactly the equal treatment rule requires. The first part of this memorandum discusses what the section 1123(a)(4) equal treatment rule actually requires, and the second part analyzes how four circuit courts have interpreted this rule to find that a plan of reorganization can, in fact, treat class members differently, as long as certain criteria are met

Prohibiting Barriers to the Booth: The Case for Limited Nationwide Preclearance Under a Modified Voting Rights Act

The right to vote is fundamental to American democracy, yet for hundreds of years American history has been marked by efforts to restrict voting. Often, voting restrictions disproportionately affect minority voters, through both intentional discrimination and facially-neutral voting laws. Since its 1965 implementation, the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) has been used to fight discriminatory voting laws through affirmative suits and mandatory federal approval of voting changes for states with a history of voter discrimination. On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a crucial part of the VRA, eliminating the requirement that jurisdictions with storied pasts of voter discrimination seek federal approval for voting law changes. Despite this holding, discriminatory voting laws persist and are on the rise nationwide. In the wake of the Court’s holding and renewed state efforts to implement restrictive voting laws, this Note argues for a limited, nationwide expansion of federal preclearance under the VRA to confront modern, wide-ranging threats to voting rights