Food product recalls related to the peanut butter Salmonella outbreak are still trickling in. So far, more than 3,863 food products containing potentially contaminated peanut ingredients made last year by Virginia-based Peanut Corporation of America have been recalled by food manufacturers across the country.
But what good is a recall if retailers don’t take the responsibility to pull the items from store shelves? National food safety lawyer Fred Pritzker has written about the growing and unresolved problem in a hard-hitting editorial.
By FRED PRITZKER
The whole point of a food recall is to prevent additional foodborne illness after producers and their adulterated products are identified. That’s why it’s so important for food companies, food distributors, food retailers and federal, state and local authorities to promptly and effectively remove from the marketplace any food known or reasonably certain to cause illness or death.
That’s also why there should be a special place in hell for those companies that knew or should have known a food product was dangerous but continued to sell it anyway.
The ongoing Salmonella outbreak involving Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) is a case in point. It appears from the company’s emails that its officers and employees knowingly shipped adulterated product. If so, the company’s liquidation and the criminal investigation of its principals are both necessary and fair.
But what about the downstream retailers of food products containing adulterated PCA ingredients? Aren’t they just as culpable if they fail to remove contaminated product from their shelves after they knew or should have known of the recall?
This is not an idle musing. Long after the PCA recall was announced and long after the list of adulterated products was known and accessible on a variety of web sites, retailers big and tiny continued to sell these poisonous snacks. I know because I looked.
Many of the recalled products were snack foods with long shelf lives and wide distribution. Many of the retailers who sell them are small outlets with small product stocks and unsophisticated (if any) recall procedures. For many such retailers, there is little economic justification for removing dangerous products and even less risk of public approbation for failing to do so – little consolation for the victims who continue to get sick long after the products should have been removed.
Perversely, the legal system in many states promotes such behavior. So called “pass through statutes” are intended to insulate downstream retailers from lawsuit liability if the upstream producer or manufacturer of the dangerous product is identifiable and solvent. In such cases, the retailer is automatically dismissed from litigation and bears no financial responsibility (dismissals can be avoided if the downstream retailer modified the product or otherwise actively participated in making the product defective).
So what should be done? From the standpoint of efficacy and efficiency, better product traceback and notification systems have to be designed and implemented. However, I have no illusions that any such improvements are really going to rid long lived snacks from the shelves of retailers disinclined to care all that much. What will incentivize such retailers is the threat of criminal sanctions and financial responsibility.
First, create a tight and focused criminal law that makes it a crime to sell a food product that a retailer knows or should know has been recalled. We do it for sales of liquor and cigarettes to minors; there is no reason not to do it for dangerous food products. If criminalizing the behavior is too extreme, create economic penalties by allowing consumers to prove such illegal sales and awarding them attorney fees if they’re successful. Again, there is precedent for such measures in consumer protection statutes on the books in virtually every state.
To promote food safety, everyone up and down the stream of commerce has to act and bear responsibility and should be held accountable for failing to do so.
