Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Food Safety

Mississippi Hog Processor Fined for Failing
to Submit E. Coli Test Samples

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Slay v. Spell, 882 So.2d 254 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed a $500 fine and a two-week license suspension imposed upon a Mississippi hog processor for failing to submit samples of slaughtered hogs for E. coli testing.

Background

Plaintiff John P. Slay owned and operated a small slaughterhouse in Mississippi. See id. at 256. Defendant Lester Spell, Jr. was the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce (Department). See id. The Department regulated the conduct of slaughterhouses within Mississippi pursuant to the Mississippi Meat Inspection Law, Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-1-301. See id. To fulfill its responsibilities, the Department adopted the federal meat inspection regulations set out at 9 C.F.R. § 310.25(a)(2)(v)(A). See id. at 256-57. Under these regulations, small slaughterhouses, such as that operated by Slay, were required to submit a specified number of E. coli tests during weeks in which they slaughtered animals. See id. at 256. The Department was kept aware of the number and location of slaughtered animals within the state by its field inspectors who prepared "kill reports" on-site and then e-mailed these reports to the Department's main office. See id. at 259.

The Department's "kill reports" indicated that Slay slaughtered animals during the weeks of October 8, 15, and 22, 2001, and that he failed to submit E. coli test samples during those weeks. See id. at 258. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Department cited Slay for twice failing to submit the required E. coli tests, imposed a $500 fine, and issued a two-week suspension of Slay's meat establishment license. See id. at 256. On appeal, the Clarke County Circuit Court affirmed the findings of the Department. See id. at 257. Slay appealed the matter to the Mississippi Court of Appeals. See id.

Arguments

Slay claimed that "the decisions of the hearing officer and the circuit judge were arbitrary and capricious because they were not supported by the evidence." Id. at 257. He also argued that the only evidence relied upon by the Department was "an unverified, unsigned e-mail of a statistical report." Id. Slay further argued that he was not subject to federal regulations because "his plant [was] a state-inspected plant only shipping intrastate." Id.

Analysis and Holding

The court rejected Slay's argument that it was not subject to the federal regulations. See id. It stated that the Department was required under Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-201(1), "to adopt standards that were at least equal to federal regulations." Id. at 257. Thus, the court ruled that the federal regulations were applicable to Slay's plant. See id. at 258.

The court held that the findings of the Department and the lower court were "supported by substantial evidence, and were not arbitrary and capricious." Id. at 260. Noting that Slay's pro se argument was "very unclear," the court reviewed the procedures employed by the Department in preparing and transmitting the "kill reports." See id. at 258-59. Although these e-mail reports were unsigned, the court ruled that they were authenticated and properly admitted into evidence "as government records prepared in the regular course of business pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Evidence 803(8) and 901(b)(7)." Id. at 259.

In determining that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the Department and the lower court, the court stated that Slay's "own records indicated that there were no test results for the weeks of October 8, 15, and 22." Id. The court also noted that the Department had given Slay the "benefit of the doubt" regarding one of the missing samples and had cited him with only two violations. See id. at 260.

The case was decided on September 14, 2004; this summary was posted Jan. 13, 2005.