Spc Cases Analyzing The Divide Between Administrative Enforcement And Criminal Prosecution Of Food Safety Violations
1. China – Shanghai Food Safety Enforcement Case (2014)
Facts:
A food company in Shanghai was found distributing expired and mislabeled dairy products.
Initial investigation by local food regulatory authorities (administrative body) led to fines and license suspension.
Administrative Action:
The Shanghai Food and Drug Administration (FDA equivalent) imposed penalties: fines of ¥500,000 and suspension of operations.
Criminal Prosecution:
Later, the same conduct led to criminal charges under Article 144 of the Criminal Law of the PRC (producing and selling substandard food).
Executives were sentenced to 3 years in prison, showing that administrative measures alone were insufficient to deter the offense.
Significance:
Demonstrates dual-track enforcement: administrative penalties for minor violations and criminal prosecution for severe harm.
Highlights the principle of escalation, where administrative enforcement precedes criminal accountability.
2. China – Sanlu Milk Powder Scandal (2008)
Facts:
Sanlu Group distributed milk powder contaminated with melamine, causing illness in thousands of infants.
Administrative Enforcement:
The Ministry of Health and local Food Safety Bureaus imposed fines and recalled the products.
Criminal Prosecution:
Due to the scale of harm, criminal investigations were launched under Articles 144 and 115 (production of harmful food and negligent endangerment).
Key executives, including Tian Wenhua, were sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve or long prison terms.
Significance:
The case represents the limit of administrative enforcement; fines alone could not address mass victimization.
Showcases the transition from administrative supervision to criminal prosecution when public health is severely endangered.
3. United States – Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) Salmonella Outbreak (2008–2009)
Facts:
PCA shipped peanut products contaminated with Salmonella, leading to over 700 reported illnesses and 9 deaths.
Administrative Enforcement:
The FDA issued recalls and conducted inspections under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
Criminal Prosecution:
CEO Stewart Parnell was criminally charged with fraud and conspiracy to ship adulterated food.
In 2015, Parnell received a 28-year prison sentence.
Other executives also faced prison time, illustrating the escalation from regulatory action to criminal accountability.
Significance:
Highlights the US system’s capacity to link administrative findings with criminal liability.
Shows that intentional negligence or repeated violations trigger criminal consequences.
4. India – Pesticide Contamination in Soft Drinks (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, 2003–2006)
Facts:
Various states in India detected excessive pesticide levels in soft drinks.
Administrative Enforcement:
State food authorities imposed fines and temporarily banned sales.
Criminal Prosecution:
Criminal negligence charges were later brought under Sections 272–276 of the Indian Penal Code (adulteration and causing danger to life).
Corporate executives faced prosecution, though convictions were rare due to evidentiary challenges.
Significance:
Illustrates challenges in India’s administrative vs. criminal divide: administrative actions are quicker and preventive, but criminal prosecution requires proof of intent or gross negligence.
5. United Kingdom – 2 Sisters Food Group Contamination Case (2017)
Facts:
The UK Food Standards Agency discovered chicken products contaminated with Salmonella.
Administrative Enforcement:
FSA issued product recalls and required corrective action under Food Safety Act 1990.
Criminal Prosecution:
In addition to administrative sanctions, the company was prosecuted for breaches of Sections 14 and 15 of the Food Safety Act (offenses of selling unsafe food).
The case ended with fines exceeding £1 million, and the managers faced potential custodial sentences.
Significance:
Highlights the UK’s integrated approach: administrative oversight coupled with criminal prosecution for severe or repeated violations.
Demonstrates that corporate liability can extend beyond fines to personal accountability of managers.
6. Japan – Snow Brand Milk Products Food Poisoning (2000)
Facts:
Snow Brand Milk Products caused mass food poisoning due to contamination with Staphylococcus bacteria, affecting thousands.
Administrative Enforcement:
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare ordered recalls and corrective action.
Criminal Prosecution:
Company executives were charged with professional negligence resulting in injury.
Some managers received suspended prison sentences, reflecting the Japanese focus on intentional or gross negligence in criminal liability.
Significance:
Emphasizes that administrative action alone may not satisfy public demand for accountability.
Shows the balance between corporate punishment and criminal sanctions for public safety.
Key Comparative Insights
| Country | Administrative Action | Criminal Prosecution | Trigger for Escalation |
|---|---|---|---|
| China (Sanlu) | Fines, recall, license suspension | Long prison, death sentence for executives | Mass harm, intent to conceal |
| China (Shanghai Case) | Fines, license suspension | 3-year prison | Repeated violations, public health risk |
| USA (PCA) | FDA recalls, inspections | Conspiracy and fraud charges | Intentional contamination, deaths |
| India (Soft Drinks) | State fines, sales bans | IPC Sections 272–276 | Gross negligence, danger to life |
| UK (2 Sisters) | FSA recalls, corrective measures | Section 14–15 prosecutions | Repeated breaches, unsafe products |
| Japan (Snow Brand) | Recall, inspection | Professional negligence charges | Mass illness, negligence |
Observations
Administrative enforcement is generally preventive and corrective, e.g., fines, recalls, license suspension.
Criminal prosecution is reactive and punitive, usually triggered by:
Mass harm to consumers
Gross negligence or intentional misconduct
Concealment of violations
Dual-track enforcement ensures both immediate mitigation (administrative) and long-term deterrence (criminal).
Variations exist across jurisdictions in thresholds for criminal liability; some require intent, others emphasize negligence.
RELATED Blog
comments