Criminal Liability for Food Safety (Law and Order Episode)

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2007-11-21 08:11pm

I'm watching a Law and Order episode.

McCoy was prosecuting the CEO of a major fast food chain due to the deaths of 5 children from eating tainted beef.

The defendant asserted that there was no definitive proof that the children were dead as a result of eating the tainted beef, and then said that when it came to light that 5 children died they immediately approached their suppliers to clean up their act.

The defendant went further and said there was a limit to the safety standards that could be implemented due simply to cost considerations. Note he never said that it was okay to not implement adequate safety standards due to costs considerations, but there was simply a limit to how safe things can get.

The defense was clearly winning the case. But the prosecution threatened to call the parents of the dead children as witnesses unless the defendant pleaded guilty.

I believe he was sentenced to 2 years in prison for every child.

Now my opinion of this is while people that negligently serve tainted food on the market should not get a pass, in this case the prosecution was unable to prove that the company was negligent, in fact when it was discovered there was a problem it was corrected. The only evidence against the defendant was he told a supplier to meet his quota or else they would take their business elsewhere. The supplier then decided to cut corners to meet quotas.

I don't know but I really felt that is was greatly inappropriate for state DA to proscecute the case. And certainly felt it was inappropriate to appeal to emotion instead of proving negligence.

What do you think?

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2007-11-21 08:26pm

In general I feel that if you negligently serve tainted food, you should be punished for it. However from your description of the episode I can't see how the CEO is at fault if the beef became tainted because of the supplier cutting corners.

After all if the supplier was going to cut corners, I really doubt they would do so in a way that their buyers would pick up. So to me the suppliers are the ones at fault here.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2007-11-21 09:34pm

I believe the supplier said they would have to cut corners if they were to make the contracted quota. To which the defendant said, "that's your problem to deal with, meet your quota or we take our business elsewhere."

Also in the episode the supplier was convicted of homicide in murdering a reporter that was trying to expose corner cutting at the suppliers plant. His sentence was reduced when he agreed to testify against the CEO of the fast food chain.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-11-21 09:49pm

So the CEO of a fast-food chain is personally liable for criminal negligence if he leaned on a supplier to cut costs and the supplier provided tainted meat as a result? In what way was he personally negligent? It's not like he told them to provide tainted meat; he simply told them that he was imposing a lower price on them.

It sounds like the supplier got a plea bargain in return for nailing "the big fish", but the "big fish" apparently committed no crime other than being aggressive with his supplier. The supplier violated food safety regulations and murdered someone, and he's treated as the small-fry?

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2007-11-21 10:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:So the CEO of a fast-food chain is personally liable for criminal negligence if he leaned on a supplier to cut costs and the supplier provided tainted meat as a result? In what way was he personally negligent? It's not like he told them to provide tainted meat; he simply told them that he was imposing a lower price on them.

It sounds like the supplier got a plea bargain in return for nailing "the big fish", but the "big fish" apparently committed no crime other than being aggressive with his supplier. The supplier violated food safety regulations and murdered someone, and he's treated as the small-fry?

The prosecution and the supplier tried to argue that he knew safety problems were arising as a result of the suppliers attempt to meet quota, and when informed that meeting quota would require cutting corners he simply told the supplier meet quota or else. Supplier tried to argue that since his company would go out of business if it loses the fast food chains orders, they had no choice but to cut corners.

Of course as mentioned before this didn't cause the CEO to plead guilty. What caused him to plead guilty was the prosecutor threatening to call the mothers of the dead children as witnesses.

The episode didn't even start as a prosecution of the CEO. The DA didn't even find out about that until they were reading through records and discovered that the fast food chain settled a civil suit with the parents. The reaction was OMG CHILDREN DIED!!!! PROSECUTE!!!

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-11-22 12:19am

Supplier tried to argue that since his company would go out of business if it loses the fast food chains orders, they had no choice but to cut corners.

Tough fucking luck. Better go out of business than kill people.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-11-22 12:34am

The thing is the fast food chain knew or had a reasonable expectation that saftey corners were cut by the very fact that the supplier was in fact meeting their quota having, seeing as the supplier informed them of the conditions by which the quota could be met. Ergo, by accepting the tainted meat they were negligent

I watched the episode...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-11-22 03:09am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:The thing is the fast food chain knew or had a reasonable expectation that saftey corners were cut by the very fact that the supplier was in fact meeting their quota having, seeing as the supplier informed them of the conditions by which the quota could be met. Ergo, by accepting the tainted meat they were negligent

I watched the episode...

How the hell does that make any sense? If you lean on a supplier, you should have a "reasonable expectation" that he will cut costs by violating the law rather than treating their employees like shit? Look, the guy is an asshole, but that's true of most businessmen, quite frankly. It doesn't mean he should be held personally negligent for the criminal actions of the supplier.

If I'm a loan shark, some guy owes me money and I keep threatening him, should I have a "reasonable expectation" that he will commit crimes to get that money? If I get charged with anything, it should be for loan sharking, not for murder when he goes and kills somebody to get the money to pay me back.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-11-22 03:13am

IIRC the CEO knew that there was tainted product being sold by his company and he personally directed that they continue doing so.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-11-22 03:42am

Darth Wong wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:The thing is the fast food chain knew or had a reasonable expectation that saftey corners were cut by the very fact that the supplier was in fact meeting their quota having, seeing as the supplier informed them of the conditions by which the quota could be met. Ergo, by accepting the tainted meat they were negligent

I watched the episode...
How the hell does that make any sense? If you lean on a supplier, you should have a "reasonable expectation" that he will cut costs by violating the law rather than treating their employees like shit? Look, the guy is an asshole, but that's true of most businessmen, quite frankly. It doesn't mean he should be held personally negligent for the criminal actions of the supplier.

If I'm a loan shark, some guy owes me money and I keep threatening him, should I have a "reasonable expectation" that he will commit crimes to get that money? If I get charged with anything, it should be for loan sharking, not for murder when he goes and kills somebody to get the money to pay me back.

I am not talking about the general case. In the general case you are correct. Because in the general case,the fast food chain in this case would not know the means by which the quota was met. They get their shipment on time and expct reasonably that it is safe.

However if you own the fast food chain and your supplier tells you, as happened in that episode, that the only way to meet the production quota was to cut corners in terms of product safety, then it is reasonable to say that if he proceeds to meet his quota, that you should be suspicious of the product. If you then proceed to sell the product, that you know is potentially tainted, then you are guilty of negligence. You are not being held responsible for his negligence, but your own. You should have checked each batch of meat for contamination, or rejected the shipment, or found another supplier. Instead you chose to accept the shipment and stay with that supplier, even though you had the reasonable expectation under the circumstances specified that the product may be tainted.

If you are merely pressuring your supplier and there is no reason for you to suspect that he may be cutting corners, then there is no negligence onyour part if he was. The difference is all in the amount of information you possess. How much they told you. And what your reasonable expectation is/was under the circumstances.