Gel spice case

MGT 5030 - Legal Environment of Business Paper 3 | Alexis Lake May 13, 2017 In reviewing the facts and conducting further research on the United States vs. Gel Spice, Co. case, I agree with the court’s decision that Barry Engel was guilty of allowing food, or in this case spices, to become adulterated or contaminated during the processing, packaging, and storage of those spices. As the corporate office of Gel Spice Co., he is responsible for ensuring the spices are unadulterated and safe for consumers. In looking to the specifics of the case, Barry Engel, the company’s president was held criminally responsible for violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Under this Act, companies are required to ensure food does not become adulterated when it is packed, prepared or stored in “insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health,” (United States v. Gel Spice Co., Inc., 1984). The company would be held criminally liable for this contamination under the theory of corporate liability, and specifically the responsible corporate officer. In this theory, the corporate officer, Barry Engel, “‘bore a responsible action’ to a violation of statue dealing with ‘products which may affect the health of consumers,’” (Bagely, 2010, pgs. 449-450). This essentially means that in this case, Engel had the opportunity to prevent the rodent infestation and subsequent adulteration of the spices, but failed to do so. When applying this theory or doctrine, the principles around vicarious liability, or the employer being liable for the actions of his or her employees, come into play. This could mean that Engel failed to supervise the employees around managing the rat issue, or failed to provide the