## Facts

- FDA detected a significant rate of salmonella contamination in shrimp imported from India beginning in late 1978.
- Indian government officials acknowledged that insanitary processing facilities contributed to the high contamination rate.
- FDA responded by sampling all shrimp arriving from India.
- In spring 1979, Continental Seafoods sought to import two lots of raw, frozen shrimp from India.
- FDA sampling found salmonella in both lots.
- FDA issued Notices of Detention and Hearing stating the shipments would be refused admission because they appeared to contain a poisonous or deleterious substance (salmonella species).
- Continental argued the shrimp were not “adulterated” because salmonella was not an “added” substance and proper cooking would eliminate any hazard.
- The district court upheld FDA’s refusal of admission; Continental appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether salmonella contamination in the imported shrimp was properly treated as an “added” poisonous or deleterious substance under the FDCA’s adulteration provisions.
2. If “added,” whether salmonella in raw, frozen shrimp satisfied the statutory standard that it “may render” the food injurious to health.
3. Whether FDA lawfully refused admission of the shipments under the FDCA’s authority to exclude imported food that “appears” adulterated.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for the government and upheld FDA’s refusal to admit the shipments.
- The court held that salmonella contamination attributable to insanitary processing was properly treated as “added,” triggering the “may render injurious” standard.
- The court accepted FDA’s determination that salmonella “may” render the shrimp injurious to health because it can cause serious illness (and sometimes death) if food is improperly handled, stored, or cooked.
- The court rejected the argument that the possibility of safe preparation negated adulteration at the import stage.
- The court upheld FDA’s import enforcement based on the statutory standard permitting refusal when food “appears” adulterated and positive sampling supported that conclusion.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FDCA, food containing an “added” poisonous or deleterious substance is adulterated if the substance may render the food injurious to health; if the substance is not added, adulteration requires that it ordinarily render the food injurious to health.
- Contamination linked to insanitary processing conditions may be treated as “added” rather than naturally occurring for adulteration analysis.
- FDA may refuse admission of imported food that appears to be adulterated; sampling and positive test results can establish the requisite appearance.
- The possibility that a consumer could eliminate a hazard through proper cooking does not bar FDA from excluding contaminated raw food where mishandling risks serious harm.
- Courts give substantial weight to FDA’s scientific and regulatory judgments in administering the FDCA’s food-safety provisions.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld FDA’s authority to refuse admission of Indian shrimp found to contain salmonella, treating the contamination as an added substance introduced through insanitary processing and concluding it may render the food injurious to health despite the potential for safe preparation through proper cooking.


Continental Seafoods, Inc. v. Schweiker, 674 F.2d 38 (D.C. Cir. 1982)