Foodborne illness remains a stubborn problem, sickening millions and costing billions each year. Regulators such as the FDA and USDA set safety standards, but enforcement alone has not been enough to prevent recurring outbreaks. Increasingly, it is the courtroom—not the regulatory agency—that drives significant reform. Litigation has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in improving food safety.
Food poisoning lawsuits often uncover systemic failures that would otherwise remain hidden. During discovery, attorneys gain access to internal documents, emails, and safety audits that reveal the truth about how contamination occurred. In the Peanut Corporation of America Salmonella outbreak, for example, litigation revealed executives knowingly shipped contaminated peanut products. That case not only secured compensation for victims but also led to criminal convictions and industry-wide reforms in testing and distribution.
Similarly, litigation against Chipotle after repeated E. coli and norovirus outbreaks forced the company to completely re-engineer its food handling practices. Supplier audits, kitchen procedures, and employee training were all overhauled as a direct result of legal and financial pressure. Consumers across the country benefited from those changes, whether or not they were directly affected by the outbreaks.
The deterrent effect of litigation is powerful. Companies know that failing to invest in safety could lead to multimillion-dollar verdicts, recalls, and reputational damage. For many, the cost of prevention is far less than the potential cost of litigation.
Critics argue that lawsuits are adversarial and expensive. But when weighed against the cost of widespread outbreaks—hospitalizations, deaths, lost productivity, and industry downturns—litigation is often the only mechanism that ensures true accountability. Regulators may lack resources or political backing, but courts allow victims to hold corporations directly responsible.
Litigation has also spurred scientific advances. Lawyers working with epidemiologists have pioneered the use of genetic fingerprinting and whole genome sequencing as courtroom evidence. These methods have not only won cases but also advanced the broader field of public health.
Food safety litigation does not replace regulation, but it complements it. Together, they form a system where standards are set, violations are exposed, and justice is pursued. Without litigation, many companies would see outbreaks as mere public relations challenges. With it, they are forced to confront failures, compensate victims, and change practices.
In this way, litigation has become one of the most important drivers of safer food systems.
