Friday, June 14, 2013

Plaintiff for the Poisoned

The Reader's Choice, the all-time favorite Blog posting by readers is where I described the arsenic poisoning forced onto the public so that mega-factory, quota bearing chicken producers could earn an extra 4% profit.

See my April 2, 2013 posting Choose: Frankenstein Chicken, or Naturally Raised Chicken? which so far has collected a total of 1,819 views.

Why so popular?  I guess it's because people get really interested when they learn they have been chronically poisoned with arsenic-laced chicken without their consent.

I've seen reports that estimate 70% to 90% of the chicken from the mega-factory producers was laced with arsenic.  So if you ate chicken you bought from a grocery store between 1970 and 2012, you are a likely victim of arsenic poisoning at the hands of the Chicken Mafia.

If people are so interested in reading about this, perhaps they'd be interested in doing something about this, beyond reading.

I wonder if anybody has (or should) file criminal or civil (negligence, class action, or otherwise) charges against the mega-factory chicken producers for the administering of a noxious substance.

Section 245 of the Canadian Criminal Code reads as follows:
Administering noxious thing
245. Every one who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, if he intends thereby to endanger the life of or to cause bodily harm to that person; or
(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 229.
It should be noted that the Crown does not need to prove that the accused knew the substance was noxious, and that intent can be implied by the actions of the accused (see here and  R. v. Burkholder, 1977 ALTASCAD 8 at 32 ).

Where was Health Canada and CFIA when all this was going on?

Is there any Crown Attorney or lawyer in private practice interested in this case, or willing to advise further?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Off-topic commercial spam that's posted so as to help sell your wares will be deleted.

On-topic comments, where you behave yourself and play nicely, will remain posted; whether they are pro or con. Everybody needs to fully understand all points of view so that we can find a solution that encompasses everybody's concerns. Give it your best shot.

If you decide to post, your posting becomes part of the public record, and SFPFC has full rights to use it (or not) in any reasonable manner or medium that suits our purposes.

Before posting, please proofread, and correct as necessary. If you subsequently discover a need to fix your previous posting, make an additional posting that refers to the original posting, then set the record straight.