Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 35
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 35-12-112 (2026)

Adulteration

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) No person shall distribute an adulterated product. A commercial fertilizer, soil conditioner, plant amendment, or compost is deemed adulterated:

(a) If it contains any deleterious or harmful substance in sufficient amount to render it injurious to human health or beneficial plant, animal, or aquatic life, when applied in accordance with directions for use on the label or normal application practices, or if adequate warning statements or directions for use, which may be necessary to protect human health or beneficial plant, animal, or aquatic life, are not shown on the label;

(b) If its composition falls below or differs from that which it is purported to possess by its labeling;

(c) If it contains unwanted crop seed or weed seed;

(d) If the concentration of any metal in the product exceeds the level established for that constituent by rule of the commissioner; or

(e) If it contains an infectious agent in sufficient amount to render it injurious to human health or beneficial plant, animal, or aquatic life.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 140, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 6-13-12. L. 77: IP(1) and (1)(a) amended, p. 1592, § 11, effective July 1. L. 2008: Entire article amended, p. 1621, § 1, effective August 5.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1989–1989 · leading case: Deacon v. Am. Plant Food Corp., 782 P.2d 861 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Deacon v. Am. Plant Food Corp., 782 P.2d 861 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 7× “Stone’s contends that the trial court erred in finding it liable solely on the basis of negligence per se because it violated § 35-12-112, C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 14). We disagree.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 35-12-112(l)(a) — 1 case
Deacon v. Am. Plant Food Corp., 782 P.2d 861 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). “Stone’s contends that the trial court erred in finding it liable solely on the basis of negligence per se because it violated § 35-12-112, C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 14). We disagree.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.