United States v. Sars of Louisiana, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 71-6.
• Citation: 324 F. Supp. 307
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. SARS OF LOUISIANA, INC., Gulf Soap Corporation, George F. Theobald, Felix R. Sapp, and Arnold Q. Ford.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

324 F. Supp. 307

UNITED STATES of America v. SARS OF LOUISIANA, INC., Gulf Soap Corporation, George F. Theobald, Felix R. Sapp, and Arnold Q. Ford.

Civ. A. No. 71-6.

United States District Court, E. D. Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division.

March 30, 1971.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Eastern District of Louisiana, Don M. Richard, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for United States of America.

Dudley Yoedicke, New Orleans, La., for defendants.

WEST, Chief Judge:

This is a suit brought by the United States of America pursuant to Section 302(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 332(a), which vests jurisdiction in this Court to restrain violations of 21 U.S.C.A. § 331(a). Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 331(a) provides:

"The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited:

(a) The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded."

The defendants own and operate a rendering plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where they process and prepare ingredients for animal food. In this suit the plaintiff alleges, and it is not disputed, that the materials produced by the defendants are in fact distributed by the defendants in interstate commerce, and that these materials are "foods" within the meaning of the Act. See 21 U.S.C. A. § 321(f). Plaintiff further contends that at the time of its inspection of the plant, the foods which the defendants were distributing in interstate commerce were adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.A. § 342(a) (1) in that these foods contained a poisonous and deleterious substance, i. e., Salmonella microorganisms and that these foods were further adultered in that they were prepared and held at the defendants' rendering plant under insanitary conditions rendering them injurious to health.

Defendants' plant was first visited by an inspector of the Food and Drug Administration in January of 1968. Certain deficiencies were noted at that time and called to the attention of the defendants. Apparently the deficiencies were not corrected by the defendants following that visit, and in July of 1970, another inspection was made. Photographs were taken in and about the plant and tests were made of the finished product leaving the plant and it was found that Salmonella microorganisms were indeed present. Defendants do not contest the fact that the presence of Salmonella microorganisms in their finished product constituted a violation of the Federal Food and Drug Act. It was stipulated between counsel that the presence of these microorganisms in the food product prepared by the defendant was dangerous to animals and that the disease which could result therefrom may be transmitted from animals to humans. The plant was again inspected in August of 1970, and at the trial before this Court it was stipulated between counsel that the deficiencies noted by the inspectors after both their July and August inspections constituted violations of the Food and Drug Act, and that the product leaving the plant was, in fact, contaminated in violation of the Act.

After the inspection which was made on August 13, 1970, the inspectors recommended:

(a) That the defendants install screening around the plant to prevent influx of flies and other insects into the plant proper.

(b) That the entire premises be completely cleaned to eliminate the presence of heavy grease residues on the cookers and on the floors beneath the cookers, and to eliminate the dirt and unclean conditions existing throughout the plant and its equipment.

(c) That the finished product be stored in proper storage facilities off of the floor and in a location separated from the raw products coming into the plant.

(d) That some method of control be implemented for the periodic cleaning and fumigating of both the equipment used in handling the raw product and the finished product in the plant and the trucks and other vehicles used in transporting both the raw materials and the finished product.

This suit was filed by the Government on January 13, 1971, and was based entirely upon the conditions found by the inspectors during their inspections in July and August of 1970. The only relief sought by the Government is injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from operating their plant and from delivering or introducing into interstate commerce dried meat scraps or other food products unless and until the recommended corrective measures are taken to insure that no adulterated products will be produced in or emanate from the plant in violation of the Pure Food and Drug Act.

At the time this case was heard on February 12, 1971, the inspectors for the Food and Drug Administration did not know whether or not any of their recommendations had been carried out since their inspection in August of 1970, as no further inspection of the premises had been made since that time. But the evidence in the case clearly showed that all of the recommendations made by the inspectors have, in fact, been implemented by the defendants and indeed, additional precautions have been taken by the defendants to insure the purity of their product. Among the things done by the defendants since the inspection of August, 1970, are the following:

(a) They have erected a silo, separate and apart from the building wherein the raw materials are processed, and in which the finished product is now properly stored in such a manner as to keep it off the ground and in a separate container.

(b) The entire premises have been fenced in order to keep out dogs, cats, and other...