When a listeria outbreak from a single plant with years of documented filth left 10 people dead, I paid attention to what the government was promising to do about it. And I have a calendar.
By that calendar, it’s been about 20 months since the Justice Department was officially asked to decide whether Boar’s Head should face criminal charges. It’s been about 20 months since the USDA’s inspector general launched a review of how its own inspector general allowed the Jarratt, Virginia, plant to continue operating for years while violations piled up. The factory later closed and was “rebuilt inside and out” before reopening. The news cycle kept going.
In fact, we heard essentially nothing from the two investigations (DOJ and IG) that are critical to establishing accountability.
Let me be precise, because accuracy is key. I am not claiming that the investigation has stopped. I don’t know that and no one outside the grand jury room does. What I do know is what the public record shows, and what it shows is long and deliberate silence.
We know there was an actual law enforcement investigation, not just a request. When the Associated Press asked the USDA for inspection and enforcement records for Jarratt and eight other Boar’s Head facilities, the agency refused. The reason given was that the records were created for law enforcement purposes ‘covering both civil and criminal law’ and that disclosing them could interfere with the investigation. Do not request a FOIA exemption from law enforcement for a non-existent problem. This denial, in writing, is the strongest confirmation that someone with a badge was looking intently at this company.
We know that two members of Congress (Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Rosa DeLauro) referred the matter to the Attorney General and Secretary of Agriculture in September 2024 and asked in plain language whether criminal charges were warranted. We know that the IG has begun a review of FSIS’s conduct. We know that by the time the plant reopens in February 2026, reporters are still writing that the DOJ is “investigating whether criminal charges are warranted” (present tense) and that the IG is “reviewing” the agency’s handling of it. Present tense 20 months later.
What we don’t have is a single public document to close the loop. There are no indictments. There is no crime information. There is no protest. There is no deferred prosecution agreement. There is no consent decree. There is no public refusal to explain why no charges were filed. And there are no public reports from inspectors about whether they did their jobs properly after years of wading through mold, bugs and dripping water. In the central question, the file is empty.
I want to stop making easy excuses. Some will say that these things take time. Yes. And I made that claim myself. Food safety criminal cases typically take two to four years from origination to prosecution. The Peanut Corporation of America prosecution that held Stewart Parnell behind bars for 28 years took years to build. Chipotle’s $25 million deferred prosecution agreement in 2020 follows an outbreak that began long ago. So I’m not banging on the table because the rates didn’t come up on the schedule I wanted. I’d like to ask a more narrow and fair question. Is anyone still doing this? Can you tell the public how this ends?
Because here’s something that makes all regulators uncomfortable. While we wait, other factories from the same company continue to produce the same types of documents. Records released to the AP around the reopening document dozens of reports of non-compliance at the second Boar’s Head facility in 2025. This includes condensation, meat residue, and failure to follow the company’s own written listeria control regulations. An inspector noted this was the fifth violation in a month. That’s not ancient history made up by plaintiff’s lawyers. That was last year. If the threat of liability has already passed, the conduct it was supposed to deter clearly has not.
I have two simple questions for the record.
To the Department of Justice: What happened to the Boar’s Head investigation? If you made a claim, say so. If you are shut down, say so and tell the families why 10 deaths are not outside the norm. The Accountability-Corporate-Officer Doctrine and the Federal Meat Inspection Act exist for executives who preside over uncorrected and dangerous situations. Here’s one of the tools applied and one not applied. The public deserves answers, not shrugs.
To the USDA Inspector General (if any): What was your review of FSIS? You opened it up to find out how Jarratt was able to operate for years through a cooperative state investigative agreement with investigators. The answer belongs to the public. Because the public is the next group of people to eat what this plant delivers.
10 people died. 60 people are hospitalized in 19 states. The factory, which should never have deteriorated as it once did, is back in business again. The least we owe is to our families, survivors, and everyone who buys their lunch meat believing that someone is watching. That tells me whether someone in Washington got the job done.
I’ll keep my calendar open. I’d rather fill in the answer than be silent for another month.
Legal basis for criminal investigation under the Federal Meat Inspection Act
These are background notes prepared for the file. It is not legal advice. Legal citations are based on the United States Code currently in effect.
1. Prohibited acts
Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”); 21 USC § 601 et seq.Makes it unlawful to sell, transport, offer for sale or transport, or accept for commercial transport adulterated or misbranded meat or meat products. 21 USC § 610 (Prohibited Conduct), including § 610(c). Federal criminal investigations of meat processors proceed on the premise that adulterated products were commercialized in violation of § 610.
2. Why the product is “adulterated”
“Labia” is defined in: 21 USC § 601(m). Both provisions relate directly to the listeria outbreak. § 601(m)(1) covers products that contain or contain toxic or hazardous substances that may pose a risk to health, and § 601(m)(4) applies to products that are contaminated with filth or prepared, packaged, or stored under insanitary conditions that may pose a risk to health. FSIS handling Listeria monocytogenes Because ready-to-eat products contain zero-tolerance adulteration, confirmed contamination of RTE deli meats demonstrates the presence of adulteration under § 601(m)(1), and documented records of unsanitary plant conditions independently support adulteration under § 601(m)(4).
3. Criminal punishment structure
Criminal punishment is determined as follows. 21 USC § 676(a)Two tiers are created:
- Misdemeanor (standard). Violations of the FMIA, for which no other penalty is provided, are punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine. In this layer No evidence of intent or knowledge — This is a “public interest” crime subject to strict liability.
- Felony (rising). The offense would be a felony and could result in up to three years in prison and greater fines if the offense involves intent to defraud. or Distribution or attempted distribution of adulterated articles (except for the narrow pesticide/additive separation of § 601(m)(8), which does not apply to: Listeria). Listeria-contaminated RTE meat is adulterated under § 601(m)(1) and distributing it may constitute a felony offense. Even if there is no evidence of fraudulent intent.
separately, § 676(b) Allow the Minister to reject recommendations minor Prosecution offenses for which a written warning is appropriately in the public interest – a discretionary provision, not a shield against repeated, uncorrected patterns of the type documented in Jarratt.
4. Reaching Corporate Executives: Responsible Corporate-Executive Principles
Because FMIA misdemeanors are public welfare offenses subject to strict liability, individual officers may be prosecuted under the liability-corporate-responsible doctrine. United States v. Dotterweich320 US 277 (1943) and American jackpot421 US 658 (1975). below parkA police officer who had authority and responsibility for the circumstances that gave rise to the violation, and who had the power to prevent or correct them, may be convicted of a misdemeanor without proving that he or she personally participated in or had knowledge of the violation. A documented, repeated, uncorrected pattern of unsanitary conditions is the classic factual setting against which these tools are deployed.
5. Who investigates and who prosecutes?
- FSIS. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, through its Office of Investigations, Enforcement, and Audits, investigates suspected FMIA violations and refers matters requiring prosecution to the Department of Justice. Invoking FSIS’s enforcement FOIA exemption (Exception 7; 5 USC § 552(b)(7)) There is public indication in the Boar’s Head records that such a survey existed.
- DOJ. FMIA criminal matters are prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Typically, the Consumer Protection Division (which handles FMIA and Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act food prosecutions) works with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the district (in this case, the Eastern District of Virginia). All means of prosecution will appear in the records of the appropriate court as an indictment or criminal information.
- Grand Jury Secrets. Ongoing federal criminal investigations are protected as follows: Fed. R. Cream. Page 6(e)This is why continued silence is consistent with a pending or closed issue. The two cannot be distinguished in public records.
6. Clear basis for FSIS internal investigation
The USDA Inspector General’s review is conducted under a variety of powers, including the Inspector General Act of 1978 (now the Inspector General Act). 5 USC § 401 et seq. (Formerly 5 USC App.) — Authorizes the IG to audit and investigate USDA’s programs and operations, including whether FSIS’s cooperative (Talmadge-Aiken) state inspection agreements adequately responded to Jarratt’s documented conditions. This is separate from FMIA prosecution of a company and is oversight of the agency itself, and the results of the investigation are typically made public through IG reports.
