The ChemNutra Indictment: A Sign of Things to Come?

6/10/2008 9:04:09 AM Richard Fama and Russell Wheeler, Contributing Editors
ARTICLE TOOLS
Continued from page 1
This trend has continued since announcement of the aggressive enforcement strategy. FDA data indicates that between 2003 and 2006 (the last year for which statistics are available), convictions stemming from OCI investigations increased from 206 to 279. During this time, the number of FDA product recalls decreased from 4,627 to 4,266, while the number of FDA warning letters decreased from 582 to 528. These numbers suggests that, despite a decreasing number of potentially actionable FD&C violations, FDA chose to rely more often on criminal prosecutions than the other enforcement techniques available.

Despite these increases, a look at recent OCI-instituted prosecutions indicates FDA reserves criminal prosecutions for the most egregious or high-profile FD&C violations, including the most serious threats to public health; incidents with the potential to affect a large number of citizens; or violations accompanied by some evidence of culpable intent. For example, in 2006, FD&C prosecuted the supplier of a non-FDA approved flu vaccine during the 2004 flu vaccine shortage; Internet vendors of the drug DXM whose products lead to five purchasers’ deaths; and an individual who tampered with infant formula by removing the product and filling the empty packages with common wheat flour.

The ChemNutra indictment fits this model of FD&C violations chosen for prosecution by FDA and OCI. Like those listed above, the violations leading to this indictment involved a highly-publicized and wide-ranging recall, as well as claims of widespread injury and death among affected pets. Moreover, although ChemNutra owners were not alleged to have intended or been aware of the purported adulteration of the wheat gluten, they both claimed to have been knowledgeable that the product had not been inspected upon export and to have not revealed this fact.

It is a simple reality that FDA and OCI do not have the resources to investigate for prosecution each one of the thousands of FD&C violations alleged each year, nor does the Department of Justice have the tools necessary to prosecute each one. Although the FD&C is broad in scope and strict in its application, FDA enjoys significant discretion in deciding which violations should be prosecuted. Examination of a handful of recent prosecutions suggests that FDA and OCI will concentrate their efforts where they are likely to have the most effect: high-profile violations leading to death or widespread injury, or involving particularly egregious conduct. By doing so, FDA and OCI can uphold the mantle of “aggressive enforcement” by sending a message of toughness and publicly demonstrating their commitment to prosecuting violations.

Although the indictment of ChemNutra and its owners may be surprising because it does not involve allegations of an intentional or knowing violation, it fits within the category of cases usually chosen by FDA for prosecution. While this situation should not be seen as a sign of an even more aggressive zero-tolerance policy, it is an important reminder of the high cost that can result from even unintentional violations of the FD&C.

Richard Fama is a member of the food liability practice group of Cozen O’Connor. He represents major food processors, manufacturers and distributors (including Fortune 100 companies) in products liability matters, in addition to advising manufacturers and distributors regarding country of origin labeling issues. Reach him at rfama@cozen.com.

Russell Wheeler is an associate in the general litigation department of Cozen O’Connor. He has experience in criminal defense and commercial litigation matters, including in the defense of consumer class actions. He can be reached at rwheeler@cozen.com.

« Previous12Next »

Comments

1

Ann H 06/27/2008 04:07

One thing is for sure, articles like this keep homemade cat food at the top of my priority list to accomplish ASAP and get the fur kids away from commercial foods.

I don't want to have to think about these lawyers, lobbyists and pet food companies greed and indifference to the health of our companion animals anymore.

I don't want to read about Nutro, or any other pet food company with issues, pretending no problemo and insulting people who have sick companion animals

And I don't want to read more CDC reports where a pet food company did not recall all of the pet foods that were "associated epidemiologically and microbiologically with illness" and NOT recalled.

http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/mars08_07.html

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/schwarzengrund.html

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5719a4.htm

I can only pray that this is the harbinger to wake up the government and the industry to the pain corporations cause without regard to anything but their bottom lines.

I will celebrate when Wilbur-Ellis and the rest of the companies who sold adulterated pet foods are added to indictments for their products.

Homemade pet food is the only answer people like the authors of this article and those in the pet food industry leave us as the absolute solution to protect the health and lives of our companion animals.

2

Sandi 06/26/2008 18:55

Chemnutra is no more "hapless" than the company they purchased the tainted wheat gluten from. If they choose to do under-handed business with a Chinese company in an effort to obtain dirt-cheap pet food ingredients, then they get what they ask for. That you compare their criminal activities to that of someone not paying for a grocery item left in their cart, is really unbelievable. You imply their violation was unintentional, I guess we'll just have to see what their criminal trial shows....I guess the big question I have is where are your morals? You are so worried about ChemNutra, what about the pets that were killed as a result of their criminal activities? And the pet parents who have been left devastated over this? I hope this sends a VERY loud message that pet parents are angry and we wont stand for this type of practice when it comes to pet food any longer.

3

Steve 06/18/2008 10:01

"Under Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) provisions, anyone who delivers or receives an UNADULTERATED or mislabeled food product across state lines, even unknowingly or unintentionally, is guilty of a crime."


I think you meant "ADULTERATED."


Post a Comment

 

announcements