Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3715
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3715.59 (2026)

When food is adulterated

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
November 21, 2001
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 136 - 124th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Food is adulterated within the meaning of sections 3715.01, 3715.02, 3715.022, and 3715.52 to 3715.72 of the Revised Code, if any of the following apply:

(A) It bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance, the food shall not be considered adulterated if the quantity of the substance in the food does not ordinarily render it injurious to health.

(B) It bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance that is unsafe within the meaning of section 3715.62 of the Revised Code.

(C) It consists in whole or in part of a diseased, contaminated, filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food.

(D) It has been produced, processed, prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered diseased, unwholesome, or injurious to health.

(E) It is the product of a diseased animal or an animal that has died otherwise than by slaughter, or an animal that has been fed upon the uncooked offal from a slaughterhouse.

(F) Its container is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render the contents injurious to health.

(G) Any valuable constituent has been, in whole or in part, omitted or abstracted from the food.

(H) Any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the food.

(I) Damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner.

(J) Any substance has been added to or mixed or packed with the food so as to increase its bulk or weight, reduce its quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater value than it is.

(K) It is confectionery and it bears or contains any alcohol or nonnutritive article or substance other than harmless coloring, harmless flavoring, harmless resinous glaze not in excess of four-tenths of one per cent, harmless natural wax not in excess of four-tenths of one per cent, harmless natural gum, or pectin, except that this division shall not apply to any confectionery by reason of its containing less than one-half of one per cent by volume of alcohol derived solely from the use of flavoring extracts, or to any chewing gum by reason of its containing harmless nonnutritive masticatory substances.

(L) It bears or contains a coal-tar color other than one from a batch certified under authority of the "Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act," 52 Stat. 1040 (1938), 21 U.S.C.A. 301, as amended.

(M) It has been processed or produced in violation of section 3715.025 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1960–2005 · leading case: Duckworth v. Burger King Corp., 824 N.E.2d 592 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Duckworth v. Burger King Corp., 824 N.E.2d 592 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “{¶ 5} On May 14, 2003, appellants filed a complaint in the present case in the common pleas court, alleging claims for breach of warranties, loss of consortium, respondeat superior, breach of contract, violations of the Pure Food and Drug Act, R.C. 3715.59, breach of implied…”
Mathews v. Maysville Seafoods, Inc., 602 N.E.2d 764 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “” *626 “The presence in one of a serving of six fried oysters of a piece of oyster shell approximately 3x2 centimeters (about lVs inches by % of an inch) in diameter will not justify a legal conclusion either (a) that that serving of fried oysters constituted ‘food’ that was…”
Mitchell v. T.G.I. Friday's, 748 N.E.2d 89 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The Supreme Court held: “ ‘The presence in one of a serving of six fried oysters of a piece of oyster shell approximately 3X2 centimeters (about 1 ^ inches by % of an inch) in diameter will not justify a legal conclusion either (a) that that serving of fried oysters constituted…”
Woeste v. Washington Platform Saloon & Restaurant, 836 N.E.2d 52 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “R.C. 3715.59(A). 10 . See Fouke & Reynolds v.”
Allen v. Grafton, 170 Ohio St. 249 (Ohio 1960). · cites it 16× “As we view it therefore, whether plaintiff’s petition sets forth a cause of action depends upon whether the presence in *252 one fried oyster of a serving of sis of a piece of shell, such as described in the petition, will justify a legal conclusion either (a) that that serving…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3715.59(A): 1 case
Woeste v. Washington Platform Saloon & Restaurant, 836 N.E.2d 52 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “R.C. 3715.59(A). 10 . See Fouke & Reynolds v.”
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.