1.Negligence
A. Negligence involves the ability to foresee the consequences of acts and fault for failing to take appropriate actions to avoid the harmful consequences. In this case, there is reasonable foresee ability, which implies that Zonar is responsible for any consequences that they could have reasonably foreseen had they been reasonable. Furthermore, there was actual foreseeability as well, which is that they are responsible for consequences they actually foresaw occurring. First of all, it is reasonable to assume that women in third world countries would need additional training and assistance when preparing, using and storing the formula. It is not enough to simply say “it’s not our problem.” There should have been solutions available for the women from day one of distribution. Moreover, to continue to market the product and actively send “milk nurses” to hospitals sends the message of negligence as well by continuing to commit to such behavior rather than taking a proactive approach and attempting to remedy the problem. When concerns were raised about the juice quality by J. Lerome, the Head of Operations, John Anders, belittled him by calling him names, such as “Chicken Little.” His circumstantial evidence should have been taken at fair value and investigated diligently instead of brushed under the carpet. Anders said Lerome could be fired, which would be unjust cause for dismissal and Zonar would face more legal liability. Lerome also took his concerns to the president and CEO, Bill Lenders, who promised to take up the issue but did nothing for several months. It is unfortunate that Lerome resigned thereafter because Zonar is losing a valuable and socially responsible individual. As a result, Lerome may now write to the FDA disclosing the juice adulteration, and Zonar may face additional legal stress. This shows that there was both actual and reasonable foreseeability, and thus the company was negligent. Producers and companies have expertise that customer’s lack, and based on this knowledge it is reasonable to say that modifications for safety should be made before the product is sold. Ethically, the company is at fault, as well as legally(Labour.gov.on.ca, 2014). According to the Canada customer product safety act, there are circumstances in which Health Canada may order a person who manufactures, imports into Canada, advertises or sells a customer product to take corrective measures, such as stopping the manufacture of a product or modifying the product so that it complies with the Act and regulations (Hc-sc.gc.ca, 2014). The purpose of this type of order would be to remedy a non-compliance with the Act or regulations or to address or prevent a danger to human health or safety. Health Canada also has the authority to formulary out corrective measures if a supplier fails to do so, at the supplier's expense. If you are a manufacturer or importer, you are not allowed to manufacture, import into Canada, advertise or sell a customer product that is the subject of a corrective measure that has not been formularized out. No one is allowed to advertise or sell a customer product that they know is the subject of a corrective measure that has not been formularized out. The actions of the employer are immoral, and if there is knowledge of potential problems, it is imperative for the producers to make the changes to ensure that the product is safe. In this case, infants are starving, others are experiencing diarrhea and other diseases and mothers are unable to feed them thereafter once their milk dries up. This could all have been prevented, and they were wrong because they were obligated to make changes if they knew of safety concerns. However, that didn’t happen as they were solely focused on the financial aspect.

B. The liberal position on health and safety is that health and safety is essential to human wellbeing and freedom; it is an entitlement, which cannot be subject to bargaining in the market. If Zonar