"Based on this assumption, the shopper who leaves a store without paying for an item that was mistakenly left in the cart is not guilty of a crime. Likewise, the innocent purchaser of what is later determined to be stolen property should not be punished. Surprisingly, this is not always the case, at least with respect to the laws regulating the food industry."

What a find, Offy!

That just makes my blood boil!  One, I think that leaving a store with unpaid for items is indeed a crime.  People that do so may not always be prosecuted and found guilty, but they could be.  As for the receiving stolen items, I did a quick Google.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/REPOSITORY/705100334
"Lt. Walter Carroll of the Concord police said detectives brought receiving stolen property charges instead of burglary charges because the first is easier to prove. A burglary charge requires the police to show that someone was in a home at a specific time, while receiving stolen property means the police must only find stolen items in someone's possession. "

The overall attempt by the writer to equate sneaking an item out of a store or buying a stolen piece of junk with poisioning pets or people is what really gets me.  They just don't have a clue, do they?

And if people had been gruesomely sickened and killed in this one, would they even have attempted to rationalize it in this way?  Outrageous 'just a dog/cat' attitude there, I think.

This food industry has gotten away with so much for so long that they are out of touch with reality.  And if they can't stand the heat, they just better get out of the kitchen.  There is nothing surprising about taking poisoning pets or people seriously. 

RE: "Perhaps, most importantly, should the hapless individual whose company unwittingly and unknowingly ships a contaminated product fear jail, along with the civil fines, recall costs and lost profits that invariably accompany such incidents? Answers to these questions require taking a closer look at the FD&C, as well as FDA’s role in its enforcement and the history of its application."

The FD&C Act makes it quite clear the answer is unequivocably yes. Unfortunately, the FDA's history of enforcing the Act is abysmal, which is the reason we're having these kind of problems in the first place.

RE: "Just how far should you go in your questioning of your suppliers practices?"

All the way. Anyone who has bothered to skim the laws both on food safety, and statutes on consumer protection, would have no doubt in their minds where the liability and responsibilty rests. From a purely business perspective, who in their right mind would spend millions of dollars on goods without checking to make sure they're getting what they paid for? That's about like buying a car without taking it for a test drive or checking under the hood to see if an engine is included. These are sophisticated business entities, with nearly unlimited access to every kind of professional expert under the sun; legal, scientific, whatever.

The most amazing thing is how any grown up could offer such childish excuses in the first place.

My biggest objection to the Chem Nutra indictment is CN is being singled out of a host of business entities that under the law are equally guilty. Where are the indictments against Menu Foods, Nutro, Hill's and all the rest? Using CN as a scapegoat and designated patsy isn't justice. It just means that once again the usual suspects get off scott free and it's back to business as usual.

Off-topic a bit BUT:

Personally, there have been at least 3 times that I have found unpaid-for items left in my shopping cart at the grocery store. I paid for the items the next time I went to that store, but this was truly an accident. One time, I left a package of cheese in the cart and didn't notice that it was still in the cart until I got home. This is not a crime, unless it remains unpaid for the next time you are in the store.

I think you are right that nobody would be prosecuted for such a thing unless intent to could proved.  We've all had something roll to the back of a shopping cart and not noticed.  Certainly doesn't mean one is a criminal.

But isn't it outlandish that the article authors would compare a forgotten pack of cheese or lemon to the events leading up to the pet food poisoning of 2007?  They wish.

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/hotnews/pet-food-recall,p2.html

"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."

http://www2.lasvegasnow.com/docs/miller_indictment.pdf

CN Indictment

Conspiracy to commit wire fraud is count twenty seven on page one.

Pages 6-11 detail how Suzhou Textiles did not register with AQSIQ (Chinese food authority), even though it was Chinese law to do so when one exported food, how the Harmonized System code for peptones was used to export the wheat gluten; Sally Miller had extensive experience with the Harmonized System and was familiar with its use.

ChemNutra was aware that the wheat gluten would arrive in the US labeled as peptones from November 2006 onward. Page 14 says that the actual time the conspiracy began is "unknown to the Grand Jury but by no later than on or about April 2006, and continuing through and until at least on or about  April 2007".  The details of the conspiracy to import wheat gluten labeled as peptones is on pages 14-24; there are e-mails as evidence to support the conspiracy counts.

This wasn't a one-time occurrence, where one could assume an error--it was the way the CN wheat gluten entered the US on a regular basis.  When something is an error, you correct it if you haven't anything to hide; when it's by plan or design, you don't change anything because you know you're not being caught at it.  People rob banks until they get caught at it.

Everyone's elated when drug smugglers are apprehended in the act or caught while conspiring to commit this type of crime.  What all parties in the indictment stand accused of is no different. The slant here comes from what those who wrote this editorial do for a living:

"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.

"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".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah

"In Hebrew, chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has over-stepped the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame.

"One example given of the ultimate of chutzpah is: "A boy, having just been convicted of murdering his parents, begs the judge for leniency because he is an orphan.""

These two have the chutzpah market cornered.

Off to the right of that article at their site is a button to add comments if anyone is interested in telling them what you think and feel about this.  I submitted mine, it said it can take 24 hours for the comments to appear. 

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/hotnews/pet-food-recall.html

My Irish temper is off the charts. No wonder so much effort was spent supressing the
actual numbers of dog and cat illnesses and deaths to "16." Accurate counting and reporting
might have subjected pet food manufacturers to much more attention from the criminal
office of the FDA, especially the "customer" who complained about the quality of the
ChemNutra product.