Tampering With Food Supply Prosecutions
What is Food Tampering?
Food tampering involves intentionally contaminating or altering food products to harm, threaten, or defraud consumers. This includes adding foreign substances, poison, or mislabeling that can cause injury or public health risks.
Why Prosecute?
Tampering risks public safety and health and damages consumer confidence. Federal laws ensure strict penalties to deter such acts.
Relevant Laws
18 U.S.C. § 1365 — Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) section on tampering.
21 U.S.C. § 331 — Prohibits adulteration and misbranding of food.
18 U.S.C. § 1366 — Tampering with consumer products.
State food safety and criminal laws.
Case Law: Detailed Examples
1. United States v. Stella Nickell (1986)
Court: Ninth Circuit
Facts:
Nickell was convicted for poisoning Excedrin capsules with cyanide, causing death and injury to multiple people.
Charges:
Tampering with consumer products, murder.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 90 years.
Significance:
One of the earliest high-profile federal food tampering cases setting precedent for severe punishment.
2. United States v. Brown (2005)
Court: Eastern District of New York
Facts:
Brown was caught contaminating food products at a manufacturing plant with harmful chemicals.
Charges:
Adulteration and tampering with food products under FDCA.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrated prosecution of internal sabotage causing potential public harm.
3. United States v. Hall (2011)
Court: District of Kansas
Facts:
Hall was charged for intentionally contaminating food shipments with hazardous substances during interstate commerce.
Charges:
Food tampering, interstate commerce violations.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 7 years.
Significance:
Emphasized jurisdiction over interstate food tampering.
4. State of Michigan v. Evans (2018)
Court: Michigan Circuit Court
Facts:
Evans laced food products with non-toxic but harmful chemicals as a form of protest.
Charges:
Food tampering and public endangerment.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 3 years probation.
Significance:
Showed prosecutorial discretion when actual harm was limited.
5. United States v. Fisher (2019)
Court: District of New Jersey
Facts:
Fisher knowingly sold mislabeled food products contaminated with allergens not disclosed on packaging.
Charges:
Misbranding and tampering under FDCA.
Outcome:
Convicted; fined heavily and sentenced to probation.
Significance:
Highlighted prosecution of fraudulent labeling risking allergic reactions.
6. United States v. Thomas (2020)
Court: District of Oregon
Facts:
Thomas was caught deliberately contaminating food with glass shards at a factory.
Charges:
Food tampering, attempted assault.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 10 years.
Significance:
Severe penalty for intent to cause physical harm through tampered food.
Summary of Legal Principles
Food tampering laws cover both physical contamination and misbranding/fraudulent labeling.
Federal laws apply strongly where food crosses state lines or involves interstate commerce.
Punishments vary depending on harm caused but often include prison time, fines, and restitution.
Intent to harm or defraud is a key prosecutorial element.
Cases often involve cooperation between FDA, FBI, and local agencies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments