Introduction
The California Milk Producers Advisory Board (CMAB) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are engaged in legal action. PETA is a group that promotes public awareness of animal rights issues. CMAB is a food division whose mission is to encourage the use of dairy products and California milk. These two groups present the evidence that supports their positions in an effort to justify their behavior. PETS blames CMAP for false advertisement and violation of the rights of animals. The three issues that are important in the context of legal reasoning are justice, lack of clarity, and policy.
Discussion
Regarding the first issue, justice should be investigated, looking at whether the claims made by PETA are fair or not. According to PETA, California cows are milked continuously during their pregnancies, and their calves are then put in crates and marketed as veal. The cows are said to dwell in feces-soaked dirt lots with little vegetation. Therefore, the advertisement that states that “Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California” is false. The universe and frame of the issue is in the state of California. However, there is no factual evidence that there was a false statement from CMAB, meaning that PETA does not have sufficient evidence to be against CMAB. Yet, the significance of the issue is that the case shows how public policies can help a state promote its economy and how external organizations can influence the company’s profitability and brand image.
The issue of the lack of clarity is presented by the ambiguity of interpretation when developing legal reasoning. As such, the court did not properly analyze the case and applied the state’s unfair competition law. This distorted the essence of the case as PETA intended to bring attention to the state of cattle contentment and bring change. However, due to a lack of clarity on their side, the case was interpreted in a way that was fitting the defendant’s defense, and as a result, it was ruled that public entities such as milk boards are not subject to false advertisement suits.
Finally, the case addressed the lack of policy that would contribute to the case. A policy is created to accomplish specific objectives, but a law is created to bring justice to the community. Policies are created in the name of the people, and laws are for the people. A set of regulations that direct any government or organization are referred to as policies. The courts are responsible for carrying out laws, as such, both public policies can influence the decision of the court. Depending on whether the court is satisfied with the policies, its decision can be dictated by this level of satisfaction.
Conclusion
An example of a policy that would impact the ruling of the court can be taken from the meat farming industry. Inspection of cattle prior to slaughter and inspection of meat products following slaughter are also governed by federal regulations. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA examines animals, slaughterhouses, and meat products. FSIS often concentrates on food-borne infections brought on by bacteria like E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria when it comes to food safety (Michael, 2020). By inspecting slaughterhouses, evaluating animal health before slaughter, doing postmortem exams of symptomatic animals as well and routine examinations of killed animals to assure product quality and safety, the FSIS also protects against diseases like BSE. Such a policy would make the court review the case and address the issue of poor treatment of animals by CMAB.
Reference
Michael, M. (2020). Regulatory Authority and Challenges from the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).