Contaminated peanuts killed nine and sickened hundreds in 2008—could new policies make such tragedies harder to punish?

Food safety is a cornerstone of public health, yet a recent executive order has reignited debates about corporate accountability. This week, we dive into landmark foodborne outbreaks, how violations were punished, and what new rules might mean for enforcement.

Your insights from our Wednesday Weigh-In shaped this discussion — let’s get started.

Presidential action: A shift in enforcement

On May 9, President Trump signed Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations, an executive order directing agencies like the FDA and USDA to limit criminal charges for food safety violations unless companies knowingly break the law. The executive order discourages criminal charges for unintentional violations, such as missing a contamination check, potentially leading to civil penalties like fines or recalls, while deliberate acts, like falsifying tests, remain subject to prosecution. The exact impact depends on how agencies implement the order. Critics, including consumer advocates, warn that the executive order, combined with reported cuts to FDA and USDA staff, could weaken deterrence against food safety violations.

🔗 Read the full executive order.

A history of outbreaks and consequences

To understand this debate, let’s revisit some major foodborne outbreaks and their penalties:

• Peanut Corporation of America (2008–2009): Salmonella outbreak sickened 714, killed 9. Executives knowingly shipped tainted products, falsifying tests. CEO Stewart Parnell got 28 years—the harshest food safety sentence ever. Set precedent for criminal accountability.
  🔗 More on the PCA outbreak.

• Jack in the Box (1993): E. coli outbreak sickened over 700, killed 4. No criminal charges; civil settlements estimated at approximately $50–$100 million, with some sources citing $55 million.
  🔗 More on the Jack in the Box outbreak.

• Chipotle (2015): E. coli and norovirus outbreaks sickened hundreds. No criminal charges; brand overhauled safety practices after losses.
  🔗 More on Chipotle’s outbreaks.

• Blue Bell Creameries (2015): Listeria outbreak sickened 10, killed 3. No criminal charges; civil lawsuits followed, with safety system upgrades.
  🔗 More on the Blue Bell outbreak.

These cases show that punishments vary by intent and impact, from prison for deliberate fraud to fines for negligence.

Did you know? The 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak is credited with leading to the creation of the USDA’s Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) program in meat and poultry plants.

Poll results and reader insights

Here’s how readers responded to this week’s Wednesday Weigh-In: "How should food safety violations be punished?"

Poll Results:

• 🛡️ Punish All Mistakes: Fine companies or charge their leaders for any unsafe food, even if it was an accident. — 59%

• ⚖️ Punish Only Intentional Acts: Only punish companies or leaders if they knew they were breaking the law. — 27%

• 💼 Fines Over Criminal Charges: Use fines or warnings instead of criminal charges in most cases. — 10%

• 🚫 No Punishment: Don’t punish companies or leaders unless they clearly meant to cause harm. — 4%

Readers are divided. One wrote, “Food safety is their duty—no excuses!” Another cautioned, “Criminalizing errors could crush small businesses.” These views highlight the tension in the new order: will softer penalties protect public health or embolden negligence? Some readers also called for stricter FDA oversight, even suggesting lawsuits for agency failures.

What’s next for food safety?

The May 9 order could further reduce the already rare criminal prosecutions in food safety cases, likely favoring civil penalties like fines for unintentional violations while reserving prosecution for deliberate acts, such as the Peanut Corporation of America’s misconduct. Historically, harsh punishments followed intent (PCA) or drove reform (Jack in the Box).

But with outbreaks sickening thousands yearly, can civil penalties alone ensure accountability? Small producers, particularly meat and poultry processors, fear that fines or frozen federal grants could cripple their operations, while consumer advocates stress that food safety standards must remain non-negotiable to protect public health.

What’s your take?

As always, we want to hear from you. How should food safety violations be punished? Should accountability always require intent, or is negligence enough?

(Keep it respectful; personal attacks or ads will be removed.)

Stay tuned for more food safety news and insights in the days ahead,

Jonan Pilet,

Newsletter Editor

Weekend Poll

Past Week’s Recalls

U.S.-Based Recalls:

• Afghani Corn Bread “Doda” recalled because of undeclared sesame and wheat

• Wells Enterprises recalls over 16,000 gallons of ice cream products because of plastic contamination

• NatureMills US Inc. recalls multiple products because of undeclared wheat, milk and sesame

• FSIS issues public health alert for chicken and bacon wrap products after testing finds Listeria contamination

• Fresh & Ready Foods’ history of violations precedes Listeria outbreak, recall

• Bonya Yogurt Parfaits recalled for undeclared almonds; more than 72,000 units affected

Canada-Based Recalls:

• Mini Éclairs recalled in Canada after testing finds E. coli

• Hak brand kale and spinach recalled in Canada because of rubber pieces

• Hak brand Boerenkool and Spinazie recalled in Canada because of rubber pieces

• More recalls…

Don’t forget…

Do you know someone who would like this newsletter? Share it with them.

Interested in reaching food safety-conscious readers like you? To become a Food Safety News partner, apply here.