From the Washington Post:

The companies are liable for distributing the tainted product even if they had no direct knowledge of the risk because they were negligent in not ensuring the toothpaste was safe, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Jerry Baik said.

Ghermezi said he had not seen the charges but was shocked by the filing. All the adulterated toothpaste was voluntarily pulled from shelves and from his Vernon, Calif., company's inventory eight months ago and destroyed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month, he said.

"Everything we had was destroyed by the FDA," Ghermezi said. "I thought the file had been closed."

Ghermezi said he supplied the toothpaste to Vernon Sales, also based in Vernon. He said his company never knowingly sold adulterated toothpaste and thought the product had FDA approval.

"We didn't know of the ingredients of the toothpaste," he said. "We don't [have] any intention of hurting people."

(Thanks to dsavlin!)

"Charges filed against LA importers over toxic Chinese toothpaste" [Chicago Tribune]
"Criminal Charges Filed Over Poisonous Toothpaste" [Washington Post]
"Los Angeles City's Chief Prosecutor, Along With FDA, Files Criminal Charges Against Two Local Companies For Toxic Toothpaste Import " [RTT News]

RELATED
"Man Who Discovered Tainted Toothpaste Located, Interviewed"
The saga of the tainted toothpaste on Consumerist
(Photo: Janmi_)

Heath and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt explains:

We're recommending the implementation of this strategy in six cross-cutting building blocks. Let me review them for you. The first is, advance a common vision. Let me give you some commentary on that point. There are many different organizations who have specific responsibilities. And in some cases, they have different priorities that need to be melded into one common vision. In other words, rather than just looking at whether the border is secure, we also need to make certain that the products that are crossing them are safe and we can use the same technology in many cases to detect both. So a common vision.

The second is increasing accountability enforcement and deterrence. I talk about prevention with verification. Clearly, we need to have strong enforcement. The third building block is focus on the risks over the life cycle of the imported product. I've given you some — that's basically going from a snapshot to a video.

The fourth — and I'll dwell on this a little more — is on building interoperable systems. We found that there were data systems that — used by, for example, the FDA, where an FDA inspector would need to have five passwords to get into five different parts of the FDA system. We found that the Customs and Border Protection would have seven different sections of their system, and neither could access data of the other. We found that there were substantial systems being developed among the shippers and the retail and wholesale community, and they were not integrated. So there is a remarkably important opportunity here to create interoperability among systems, so that we can see the life cycle of the product and have much more efficient capacity to track and to screen and to respond.

The fifth building block is a culture of collaboration. This is not a new problem within any federal or public/private enterprise, being able to break down silos. And sixth, promoting technological innovation with new science. We saw many instances where field tests, for example, were useable for inspectors to make on the spot determination, as opposed to needing to take samples and send them to a lab.

The working group's recommendations can only work in concert with an effective inspection system. It is unreasonable and unaffordable to inspect every item arriving at our ports, but the government should develop a system that both streamlines operations, and holds importers accountable for importing products that comply with our safety laws.

Press Briefing on Import Safety by Heath and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt and National Economic Director Al Hubbard [The White House via AP]
(AP Photo/Harry Rosettani)

Ching estimates that a lawsuit against a Chinese company typically lasts 10 years and costs five times as much as a normal case.

"If it's a small or medium manufacturer, it's not even worth considering suing them. It's not about the merits of the case, they could be dead liable, but it would be too difficult, too lengthy, too expensive," he said.

The roadblocks to suing a Chinese company have diverted most liability lawsuits to U.S. importers and wholesalers. Litigation lawyers say that while they have seen a spike in the number of inquiries about liability suits, most of the more than 100 pending suits filed over Chinese products target only the American or Canadian importer, the wholesaler or the retailer of the product.

The most cost-effective way to hold a Chinese manufacturer responsible, said Cohen, may not be through the courts. "Publicity may be the best weapon for anyone who can't afford litigation," he said.

Liability Lawyers Struggle to Pierce the Chinese Curtain [Washington Post]
(Photo: Petr Ruzicka)