Safeguarding product consumers at all costs
In my opinion, it is without any objection that I concur with the court’s verdict of having Mr. Parks charged. Being a frontrunner of a countrywide food chain, he assumes the responsibility of safeguarding his product consumers at all costs. According to the FDA, there are clear set guidelines, expectations that he should have been compliant. In this case, it is without argument that Parks did nothing in his power to guarantee meeting the set expectations. Also, it was Mr. Parks responsibility to warrant that his employees were compliant with proper sanitation ways. This shows the neglect of responsibility. However, Parks could argue that the food chain had delegated duties, but providing hygienic conditions for food sold to the public is meant to be a responsibility of the whole company’s operation. Irrespective of whether Mr. Parks was running the warehouse that stored contaminated food, Mr. Parks received a cautioning letter, which notified him of the state of affairs. I would not say that Mr. Parks had any intention of hurting his product consumers, but he cared less about getting the situation dealt with.
The court concluded that if an individual willingly took charge of a company with its problems, then they willingly bear the result of any illegalities in the company with exceptions made only when the possibilities to fix the problem is absent. Examples of precedent cases that yielded to that verdict include United States v. Dotterweich, it is a duty of companies to set in measures that ensure no violation of set standards occurs—thereby making food providers the firmest censors of their products. According to Smith v. California, the Act penalizes neglect where the action is called for. Just like when Mr. Parks received a cautioning letter regarding, 1970 FDA warning and did nothing. It is evidence enough that Mr. Parks had relied on his subordinate staff to accomplish sanitation matters.