Skip to content
Personal information

Publisher’s Platform: Food ‘Crimes’: When to Prosecute and Not?

Published:
BCK-951-BS_F3-e1437272410171

Is it time for prosecutors to set forth clear guidelines for who is prosecuted and who is not?  A few weeks ago, I was quoted in an article entitled, “Will Blue Bell face criminal charges after ice cream recall?”  Bill Marler, a food safety lawyer who has represented victims in many of those cases, says Justice’s recent activity is especially notable because in many of the cases, company executives didn’t know they were shipping out tainted food, but they were hit with criminal charges anyway. “It’s been very much of a sea change,” Marler said. “Once you start down this road you have to decide whether you are going to do it all the time or selectively.”  So, when to prosecute and when to not? What are the criteria, if any, that the Justice Department now uses to decide to prosecute? For those who are prosecuted, does the punishment fit the crime? And, what happens when similar “crimes” are not prosecuted at all?  First, for a bit(e) of background history:  In 1938, Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) in reaction to growing public food safety demands. The primary goal of the Act was to protect the health and safety of the public by preventing deleterious, adulterated or misbranded articles, including food, from entering interstate commerce.  Under section 402(a)(4) of the Act, a food product is deemed “adulterated” if the food was “prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.” A food product is also considered “adulterated” if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health. Chapter III of the Act addresses prohibited acts, subjecting violators to both civil and criminal liability.  Felony violations include adulterating or misbranding a food, drug, or device, and putting an adulterated or misbranded food, drug, or device into interstate commerce. Any person who commits a prohibited act violates the FDCA. A person committing a prohibited act “with the intent to defraud or mislead” is guilty of a felony punishable by years in jail and millions in fines, or both. The key here is an intentional act.  A misdemeanor conviction under the FDCA, unlike a felony conviction, does not require proof of fraudulent intent, or even of knowing or willful conduct. Rather, a person may be convicted if he or she held a position of responsibility or authority in a firm such that the person could have prevented the violation. Convictions under the misdemeanor provisions are punishable by not more than one year in jail, or a fine of not more than $250,000, or both.  Here are four recent cases where prosecutors brought criminal charges:

And, here are four where no charges have been brought, at least not yet:

Admittedly, I have been a booster for increased food crime prosecutions — both misdemeanor and felony. In all the four cases above where prosecutions happened, I have helped prosecutors understand the science behind the outbreaks and explained to them the devastation suffered by the victims and families.  Yet, looking at the above eight outbreaks together, I find it a bit hard to parse out why some have been targeted — OK, perhaps the Parnell prosecution is a bit easier because it was so clearly intentional — and some have not, or at least not yet.  Honestly, what are the differences in prosecuting the Jensens, the DeCosters and ConAgra and leaving the others, so far, unmolested by section 402(a)(4) of the FDCA? Is it the number of sick, the number of dead? Is it the economic consequences? What really are the criteria, or, should it simply be left to the discretion of the prosecutor as to who, or what, feels the sting of the criminal justice system?  It is time for prosecutors to set forth clear guidelines for who is prosecuted and who is not. People (and corporations, if you do not quite agree with some who do not see the difference) should know what the rules are and how they are going to be enforced and that they will be enforced consistently and fairly.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

http://www.slideshare.net/marlerclark/criminal-sanctions-a-real-risk-in-food-production

Bill Marler

Bill Marler

Accomplished personal injury lawyer, Food Safety News founder and publisher, and internationally recognized food safety expert. Bill's advocacy work has led to testimony before Congress and his blog reaches 1M+ readers annually.

All articles

More in Opinion & Contributed Articles

See all

More from Bill Marler

See all

Sponsored Content

Your Support Protects Public Health

Food Safety News is nonprofit and reader-funded. Your gift ensures critical coverage of outbreaks, recalls, and regulations remains free for everyone.