Do You Care About Your Pet.com
Your Subtitle text
The Pet Food recall sentence
Below is the story about the sentencing for the owners of ChemNutra, I believe they got off too easy, while the American public got a slap in the face!
This is a story from the Pet Connection Blog:
Pet food recall: ChemNutra owners to be sentenced today
By Christie Keith
February 5, 2010
Today's the day that Sally and Stephen Miller, owners of ChemNutra, Inc., the company that imported the melamine-laden protein powder that led to the 2007 pet food recall, and the illness and death of tens of thousands of dogs and cats, will be sentenced.
But if you were hoping for justice or even just tough love, you're probably going to be disappointed.
Sentencing is scheduled for Friday, February 5, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.
before United States Magistrate Judge John T. Maughmer. As more fully explained below, the Government recommends that the Court adopt the agreement of the parties and impose a sentence of three years probation on each defendant, to include certain conditions of probation for each defendant, all as set forth and agreed to by the parties in the plea agreement.
The government concludes the Millers were at fault, and what they did caused great harm:
Because of the neglect of these defendants, because they failed to exercise foresight and vigilance, the public suffered greatly.
Thousands of innocent pets became seriously ill and many suffered death. It is impossible to talk about this case without realizing that the defendant's criminal conduct posed and caused substantial physical injuries, death, and psychological injuries.
Seems the Millers are still balking at the charges, even though they've pled guilty to them -- and the government's not very happy about that:
The defendants pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Particularly in this case, the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of misbranding and adulteration crimes go far beyond the misdemeanor label that is attached to them.
And this:
Every factual objection [they are making] can be traced to one or more allegations in the indictment which the defendants either admitted was true or agreed could be used to determine their sentence. By raising these objections, the defendants could be viewed as being in breach of the terms of the plea agreement.
In case of breach, the Government is released from its obligations under the agreement, the defendants remain bound by their guilty pleas, and the defendants are sentenced without the benefit of the promises made by the Government.
[....]
(T)he defendants have never admitted that they knowingly imported wheat gluten that was misbranded and adulterated with melamine.
In fact, the Government does not contend and does not ask the Court to conclude that the defendants had actual knowledge that the imported wheat gluten was adulterated with melamine.
But the fact that the defendants did not actually know that the imported wheat gluten was adulterated with melamine does not prevent the Court, or anyone else for that matter, from concluding that the defendants acted recklessly or with more than mere negligence.
There's a lot more, including an overview of just how and why the Millers should have been able to detect and prevent this tragedy.
It makes for some rough reading.
I don't know what the actual sentence will be, but I'm pretty sure it will be along the lines laid out in the memorandum: Probation, and a small fine. That's it.
And the Millers still have their friends, too. Plenty of them sent letters (here and here) to the court testifying to what good, righteous, honest, religious, upstanding citizens the Millers are.
Not a word about what happened to the people and pets affected by the adulteration of the alleged wheat gluten with melamine -- but lots of sad stories about how hard this has been on the Millers.
Who are, I'm sure you'll be glad to know, back in the food ingredient importing business already.
This is a story from the Pet Connection Blog:
Pet food recall: ChemNutra owners to be sentenced today
By Christie Keith
February 5, 2010
Today's the day that Sally and Stephen Miller, owners of ChemNutra, Inc., the company that imported the melamine-laden protein powder that led to the 2007 pet food recall, and the illness and death of tens of thousands of dogs and cats, will be sentenced.
But if you were hoping for justice or even just tough love, you're probably going to be disappointed.
Sentencing is scheduled for Friday, February 5, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.
before United States Magistrate Judge John T. Maughmer. As more fully explained below, the Government recommends that the Court adopt the agreement of the parties and impose a sentence of three years probation on each defendant, to include certain conditions of probation for each defendant, all as set forth and agreed to by the parties in the plea agreement.
The government concludes the Millers were at fault, and what they did caused great harm:
Because of the neglect of these defendants, because they failed to exercise foresight and vigilance, the public suffered greatly.
Thousands of innocent pets became seriously ill and many suffered death. It is impossible to talk about this case without realizing that the defendant's criminal conduct posed and caused substantial physical injuries, death, and psychological injuries.
Seems the Millers are still balking at the charges, even though they've pled guilty to them -- and the government's not very happy about that:
The defendants pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Particularly in this case, the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of misbranding and adulteration crimes go far beyond the misdemeanor label that is attached to them.
And this:
Every factual objection [they are making] can be traced to one or more allegations in the indictment which the defendants either admitted was true or agreed could be used to determine their sentence. By raising these objections, the defendants could be viewed as being in breach of the terms of the plea agreement.
In case of breach, the Government is released from its obligations under the agreement, the defendants remain bound by their guilty pleas, and the defendants are sentenced without the benefit of the promises made by the Government.
[....]
(T)he defendants have never admitted that they knowingly imported wheat gluten that was misbranded and adulterated with melamine.
In fact, the Government does not contend and does not ask the Court to conclude that the defendants had actual knowledge that the imported wheat gluten was adulterated with melamine.
But the fact that the defendants did not actually know that the imported wheat gluten was adulterated with melamine does not prevent the Court, or anyone else for that matter, from concluding that the defendants acted recklessly or with more than mere negligence.
There's a lot more, including an overview of just how and why the Millers should have been able to detect and prevent this tragedy.
It makes for some rough reading.
I don't know what the actual sentence will be, but I'm pretty sure it will be along the lines laid out in the memorandum: Probation, and a small fine. That's it.
And the Millers still have their friends, too. Plenty of them sent letters (here and here) to the court testifying to what good, righteous, honest, religious, upstanding citizens the Millers are.
Not a word about what happened to the people and pets affected by the adulteration of the alleged wheat gluten with melamine -- but lots of sad stories about how hard this has been on the Millers.
Who are, I'm sure you'll be glad to know, back in the food ingredient importing business already.
We invite you to come to our blog and leave your comments.
We would really like to hear your thought about this!
Click Here to visit our blog
We would really like to hear your thought about this!
Click Here to visit our blog
Copyright . Do You Care About Your Pet.com. All rights reserved.
