Goodwin v US article
I agree that the United States Food & Drug Administration is given too much latitude to decide when to seize or stop the importation of a person's property for sale in the US. Even though the National Shellfish Sanitation Program is mandated to protect the public from diseases which can be transmitted through clams, I am certainly not convinced that the Food and Drug Administration has the powers to implement this act. I believe so because the statute clearly requires that it must appear that there are unsanitary conditions, or the clams must have come from uncertified waters.
Based on the court findings, the plaintiff is an origin of American who has been participating in importation of clams that comes from Mexico. These goods he had been supplying into different markets and hotels more so in West Coast but it has not caused any outbreak of any disease. For the entire course of the business his supplies had been tested by Food and Drug Administration to find out if there was any presence of E. coli bacteria before they were taken to the market for sale. Even though, this product may cause some diseases, the presence of such bacteria which cause diseases can currently be tested by a well established tool. This is able to help in the determination of the presence of E. coli bacteria. When there is high availability of the E.coli bacteria, it therefore shows that this product was grown in a bad environment under which water was contaminated diluted by human feces. It is not the responsibility of Food and Drug Administration to test the presence of E. coli bacteria in shellfish but to ensure that they are safe for human consumption before they are taken to the market for sale. It is also the role of FDA to prevent the importation of live clams which come from unaccepted environment to other countries as they are likely to have negative effect on human health.
US v Food 2998 article
I think that bonded warehouse has some importance in decision making. This was based on the response of the plaintiff which authorized the destruction of bad mushrooms. In this case the court held that from then the mushroom had never been sold in different countries as demanded under section 334(a). This was as a result of mushroom being usually kept under customs service transit bonds. There is also variation in section 334 and 338 and their difference comes because section 334(a) assets that mushroom had not been allowed to be sold in the interstate commerce as the law demands. This was because they are not allowed to leave customs service transit bonds and in the contrary sec 381 (a) confirms that it is the responsibility of the plaintiffs with the support of shipment to allow defendant to re- export these goods before disposed of. It was court tried to determine whether the mushrooms had been sold in interstate commerce within FDCA and if it was allowed by the Congress to invoke section 334 of judicial proceedings once the goods had been taken to the market. According to the court proceedings, it was right when the court gave a clear description of interstate commerce. It definition was that mushroom was an interstate commerce and therefore the statute or the intention of the congressional was able to block the proceedings as supported by section 334 of the Act.
The US v Rx Depot article
It was decided by the court that Rx Depot was drug deport since it involve in the sale of drugs which Federal Government allowed to be sold in the country. This was supported by the action US took against all the companies that supply drugs from Canada for all American patients which had the allegation of violation of FDCA. According to my legal knowledge the court was right as all the companies that supply drugs from Canada to USA did not comply with the requirement of statutory prohibitions which controls the importation of drugs from other countries. In case the drugs were produced in USA or in authorized FDA facility, it was wrong and against the law to deal in the sale of drugs because all the drugs received from Rx Deport had no legal approval from FDA. It is also important to note that all drugs from R x deport imported in FDA approved facility could only be allowed in for sale when they followed the right channel.
Cite this page
Food & Drug Administration Court Cases Analysis, Free Essay. (2019, Oct 04). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/goodwin-v-us-article
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:
- What Is a Prosecutor - Law Essay Example
- Free Essay Sample: Information Recall and Eyewitness Testimony
- Contract Law Essay Sample
- Essay Sample: International Criminal Court Pros and Cons
- Law Essay Sample on Guilty Plea in Criminal Law
- Capping Prosecutorial Discretion
- Healthy Food on College Campuses, Essay Example