Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 616.225 (2026)

Disposal of adulterated, misbranded, unsound or unsafe food or consumer commodity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      616.225 Disposal of adulterated, misbranded, unsound or unsafe food or consumer commodity. (1) Whenever a duly authorized representative of the State Department of Agriculture finds, or has probable cause to believe, that any food or consumer commodity is adulterated, or so misbranded as to be dangerous or fraudulent, within the meaning of ORS 616.205 to 616.295, the representative shall affix to such article a tag or other appropriate marking, giving notice that such article is, or is suspected of being adulterated or misbranded and has been detained, embargoed or seized, and warning all persons not to remove or dispose of such article by sale or otherwise until permission for removal or disposal is given by an authorized representative of the department. No person shall remove or dispose of such detained, embargoed or seized article by sale or otherwise without permission of the department.

      (2) Whenever the department or any of its authorized representatives finds in any room, building, vehicle of transportation, or other structure, any meat, fluid milk, dairy product, seafood, poultry, vegetable, fruit or other perishable articles which are unsound, or contain any filthy, decomposed or putrid substance, or that may be poisonous or deleterious to health or otherwise unsafe, the same hereby being declared a nuisance, the department or its authorized representative forthwith shall condemn or destroy the same, or in any other manner render it unsalable as human food.

      (3) The department shall carry out the provisions of this section as provided in ORS 561.605 to 561.630. [Amended by 1973 c.227 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1979–1979 · leading case: State v. Greene, 591 P.2d 1362 (Or. 1979).
State v. Greene, 591 P.2d 1362 (Or. 1979). · cites it 2× “087, or adulterated or misbranded food or consumer commodities, ORS 616.225. [2] As the late Professor Herbert Packer pointed out, courts fill the gap in the law of the law enforcement process only in the discharge of their duty to construe the Constitution in cases that come…”
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.