This synopsis of a recent student comment featured in the San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review is part of an ongoing series for Fresno County Bar Association’s Bar Bulletin. The San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review, founded in 1991, is the oldest agricultural law review in the nation. It is published annually by students of San Joaquin College of Law, and presents student and scholar works on legal topics of current interest to those in agriculture, government, business and law. Its articles and comments have been cited by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the California Supreme Court, the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District of California and the New Mexico Court of Appeals among others. The previous Volumes are available on line at www.SJCL.edu/law-review. Professional articles are always welcome. Contact Volume 28 SJALR Executive Editor/Community Liaison Editor Gladdey Donsanouphit at gladdey.donsanouphit@student.SJCL.edu for more information.
The End of an Elusive Era: Why The Food Safety Modernization Act Appropriately Holds Irresponsible Corporate Officers Liable
By Joseph Good
J.D. Candidate and Staff Member
27 San Joaquin Agric. L. Rev. 1 (2018)
San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review
More than 200 known diseases are transmitted through food. While not all foodborne illnesses are preventable, with proper care and adequate oversight, many outbreak crises may be averted. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that each year, “one in six Americans (or forty-eight million people) gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3000 [people] die [from] foodborne diseases.” Foodborne outbreaks occur when at least two people get sick from eating the same food or drink that is contaminated. In the United States, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is in charge of investigating possible outbreaks to ensure that they are controlled.
When a corporate officer fails to ensure the safety of products being released into the market or knowingly allows tainted items to be released to the public, they are seldom held personally liable for the misdeed. This is not only a grave injustice of public policy, but it also goes against the trend in tort and criminal law to hold those liable for the consequences of their actions or in the alternative inaction.
Regulations that fall in line with health and the broad policy of safe food are necessary to ensure that we have responsible corporate officers putting clean, safe food into the stream of commerce. The Food Safety Modernization Act aims to do just that. The FSMA is the first major piece of legislation passed in decades that strengthens protections, inter alia, for consumers against corporate dignitaries who do not act responsibly. Passed in 2010 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law in 2011 under then President Barack Obama, the FSMA provides updated guidelines and protections for consumers in what appeared to be Congress’ response to the Peanut Butter Salmonella Outbreak in 2008 that made at least 700 people ill and contributed to the deaths of at least nine people.
By exploring the policy reasons behind The United States Food and Drug Administration and examining the historic case law regarding corporate personhood and the criminal justice system in general, it is clear that the FSMA is consistent with the public policy for health and food safety. Through a brief history of foodborne illness outbreaks, public policy, and case law, this comment analyzes whether the FSMA is appropriate in holding irresponsible corporate officers liable for their actions or inactions.