Food Safety Controversy

1516 Words4 Pages

AD: Hi I am Anderson Cooper. We have two guests on the show tonight. The first is Bill Marler. Marler is the most prominent foodborne illness lawyer here in the United States of America; he began focusing on foodborne illnesses IN 1993 when he represented Brianne Kiner against Jack in the Box due to an E. coli 0157:H7 causing Kiner to be seriously injured (“William Marler”). Our other guest today is Randal Meyer of the CATO Institute. CATO believes that there should be a limited government and a free market; they view too much government intervention will cause a less free society (“About CATO”). These two are going to discus an important topic on food safety, whether the executives of a Food company should be held liable for adulterations …show more content…

When they fail to do this by violating regulations they comment a crime. Thus they must be held legally liable. So, the Justice Department should pursue jail time for those who produce unsafe food to show the importance of food safety and the executives’ role in maintaining food safety.

AD: Thank you, Mr. Marler. Mr. Mayer, how do you respond to Mr. Marler’s comments?

RM: I believe that food safety is important but the executives shouldn’t be held criminally liable for lacking food safety. I do believe that food safety is very important, but it is the role of the market to promote safer foods not the governments. Executives should want to make safer foods in order for their company to grow not because the Justice Department will put them in jail. That is why I think the Justice Department should not pursue jail time.

AD: Mr. Marler, how do you respond to Mr. Mayer’s opinion?

BM: It is the governments role to protect it citizens by promoting safer food. Therefor, the government should create regulations and hold executives, like the DeCosters, legally liable for the damages done by unsafe …show more content…

Mayer, how do you respond to Mr. Marler’s comments?

RM: I agree that food safety is important. However, as I have stated before it is the market that should promote food safety not government regulations and legal liabilities. This will promote a free society and economy. The free market will ultimately protect the consumer’s interest out of the companies’ interest to sell their goods to a wider verity of people. According to McFadden and Stefanou (2016), there are several examples where the free market is working in favor of higher quality foods.

AD: Thank you, both, Bill Marler and Randal Meyer for your opinions on this serious matter of food safety and the government’s role, whether it limited allowing for a free market to promote food safety or a stronger government to promote the same thing. I am sure everyone listening learned a lot. When it comes to violating regulations, there are many opinions on how it dealt with. Some, like Bill Marler, believe the executives should be held liable and that they should receive prison sentences. Others, such as Randal Meyer, think that the executives should not be held liable thus not receive jail time because they had no knowledge of the contamination. That is all for tonight’s debate, thank you all for

Open Document