Key Facts
Several individuals in the community and societies of California filed different cases against owners and farmers of fish. The fish farmers are among the community striving to offer essential support, management and proper feeding to the communities. The aim of the plaintiffs was developing and leading a community that stands on the necessity and importance of fresh, natural and high-quality feeds. The plaintiff of the case was Kevin Golden from the Center for Food Safety, San Francisco. There were several plaintiffs, who filed the case on 2004 against the farmers and producers of farm-raised salmon. The defendants were Seyfarth Shaw, Jay Connolly and Geoff Long (In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 2008). They stood for the accused in the court of law. Since the filing of the cases, the defendants in the California state successfully objected about the plaintiffs' stand on their marketing and selling of farm raised salmons with increased use of food additives. The plaintiff's claim based on the state and federal of following the standard rules in engaging in grocery services. Therefore, the defendants referred to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), in supporting and learning about the importance and value of selling or marketing food products.
Issue
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants broke some acts and rules that manage and promote marketing. Thus, there is the violation of unfair competition law (UCL). This is the issue of marketing artificially colored farmed salmon. This action undermines the logical farming and growing of freshly naturally produced salmons. The violation comes with additional of additives to general produce another different color. Secondly, there is the issue of violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 2008). This act is in violation towards the proper consumption, allocation and growing freshly farmed salmons. The violation according to the plaintiffs is regarding poor marketing and falsifying vital information. Consumers should have firsthand information regarding the quality and ingredients in the foodstuffs. Thirdly, there is an issue regarding violation of false advertising. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants did not fully support the necessary rules and regulations governing the standard and associations for marketing products. This situation is due to the effects of not supporting and helping the general development, conservation of what consumers' access from their groceries (In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 2008). Finally, there is the negligent misrepresentation. The groceries according to the plaintiffs did not support and adhere to rules of integrity and ethical business. Hence, the main issue was groceries were marketing artificially colored farmed salmons without informing the consumers of the additional additives.
Rule
The application of different rules, in this case, were under the jurisdiction of the federal rules and state laws. The ruling applied different rules that both support the defendants and plaintiffs' claims on the cases. According to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), it does not support and hence, it prohibits misbranding of food. This is essential in promoting and managing the necessary measures to promote business and helping the over disclosure of information. The FDCA also recognizes the need to follow regulations such as packaging information, developing and monitoring the necessary features such as information regarding nutrition and any food additive if added. Secondly, there is the consideration for Nutrition Labelling and Education Act of 1990 (In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 2006). According to the Act, it helps in developing and measuring nutritional labeling and supporting information disclosure and accessing the necessary facts to support, help and promote consumer protection through packaging. The Sherman Law also prohibits the misbranding of food substances and disclosure of information regarding food additives and proper labeling. Finally, based on the United States section 337, specifies if any person should and could like to make changes to FDCA, it should be done under the name of United States of America. Therefore, these are some of the rules to enable the ruling on the case.
Decision
According to the California Supreme Court, they reversed the plaintiffs' claims of violating the regular and essential features of the FDCA. This is due to the rights offered by the FDCA regarding its rights for organizations to labeling and indication of any food additives. The relevance follows a common ground of forming, managing and associating with the role of compound development towards a unified consensus on marketing products. The decision further offered a better indication of the facts such as proper identification and labeling if any additives. This is the main claim used to support and win the objects of the defendants in court (In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 2006). Secondly, the court supports the claim of the Sharman Law in supporting the inclusion of chemicals such as astaxanthin and canthaxanthin in the feed of salmon. This addition helps in forming and developing the natural coloring of fresh salmon. This is a rule that the defendants did not breach or break but used to ensure there is the productive production of fresh salmon for their consumers. Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not have the right to amend a section of the FDCA, which is a right for Congress in ensuring there is a proper alignment of rights. If the plaintiffs want to change the rule of the FDCA in breaking federal rights, then they should register as private and for the United States.
Reasoning
The classes filed by the plaintiffs' offers a clear representation of the nature of the violation of rules. The courts and judges included necessary actions to support the rules and if any breaches of the state rules and regulations. The focus on rules does not support nor guarantee the means and supporting the overall means to promote and create a basic analysis of the issues. If there is a violation in labeling, the Sherman and FDCA supports the usual means of promoting and creating a disclosure of information but also supports the use of chemicals in salmon feeds. This is an action which promotes, develops and increases a common relation to the benchmark for the case.
Critical Analysis
The plaintiffs had a case which did not violate or consider the general legal limit of the state rules. The necessity of these rules offers a limit to the violation as claimed by the plaintiffs. More so, there are the differences in maintaining and collecting a formal understanding of how to achieve and use the rights of FDCA in accordance to the actions of the owners. The defendants' aspects and a stand as is to an understanding based on state laws' agreements to promote, develop and support the overall needs of the consumers. Through the agreement of the FDCA groceries sell fresh salmon based per the rules and guidelines of the FDCA.
Works Cited
In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 175 P.3d 1170, 72 Cal. Report. 3d 112, 42 Cal. 4th 1077 (2008).
In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 48 Cal. Report. 3d 449, 142 Cal. App. 4th 805 (Ct. App. 2006).
