Carrier Sent Finished Good Foodstuff on Trailer with 6.1 Poisons

Hello, 

My company shipped some pallets of foodstuff, all sealed finished goods, on a trailer which was later loaded with a pallet of 6.1 Hazardous material (poison). Before it could even make it to the customer, it was rejected by the carrier. They are now looking to return to us. There is a high dollar associated with the shipment so it's of some concern on should it be accepted, should some type of claim be filed, ect. The CFR states its not acceptable to ship and we are SQF certified, so we much follow all applicable regulatory guidelines. 

My main question is, what would others do? Are there proposed corrective actions from the FDA on these types of situations? I would reckon its easy to say the material should be considered contaminated, but I am curious if there is another way? 

The carrier is also saying there are new DOT regulations within the past week that made it not okay to ship 6.1 poison with foodstuff. The CFR looks to date back to 1999 so I am not buying what they are saying. Was there a DOT change anyone knows of? 

I feel like scenario will spawn a new company policy. 

Thanks for any help or insight!

Oh the joys of LTL...  My view might be unique, but I have the shipping guys inspect the LTL's for obvious leakage or pest issues, but I never prohibited them from loading a pallet onto a mixed trailer.  Reason being is that LTL's are going to unload/reload that pallet countless times between their DC's, and I can't even control what the driver's next stop will be from my plant.  We addressed this with poly covers over the pallets, full shrink wrap, tamper tape on all sides, and placards indicating the pallet contains food.  I've successfully defended these points and practices in multiple audits.

If the carrier is the one that loaded these things next to each other, it's on them.  We rejected customer complaints in the past when the customer was the one who paid/scheduled the LTL and then tried to blame us when the LTL truck showed at their dock with mixed goods.  Told them if they want a dedicated trailer, they need to pay for it.  You could modify your program to prohibit loading next to incompatible materials at your site on LTLs, but once it's gone is 100% the responsibility of the carrier.

This is kind of a necro, but just happened to us this week. I did a somewhat deep dive into FDA sanitary transportation rules and couldn't really find anything on it. 

We ultimately told the shipper to dispose of the product (we have contract that our food can't be shipped with x, and y) but I would like some regulatory backing on this decision in case they try to kick it back. 

Did anyone find the DOT reg? I can't seem to locate that either. 

So actually I did find :

My company shipped some pallets of foodstuff, all sealed finished goods, on a trailer which was later loaded with a pallet of 6.1 Hazardous material (poison). Before it could even make it to the customer, it was rejected by the carrier. 

 

If I understand this correctly, the trailer was loaded with poison while the foods were still there. If that is true, it makes sense for a carrier to reject the goods. They could be cross-contaminated and it flat out violates the rules of what goods can be shipped together. The question for me is who did the loading and who ordered it. Whoever decided that loading poison on this trailer was a good idea, is responsible for it.

This is an old one I necro'd. For us, a carrier yesterday reached out and said they picked up shipment classified as poison with our product on the truck. We have contract with them that that is a no no, but I was also hoping to find a regulation stating such. 

Our product is all sealed in boxes and they claimed the poison was sealed..but I just don't feel comfortable even trying to cut corners with that. That's the whole purpose of the contract.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

I think you're looking for 49 CFR § 177.841 ( c ):

© Division 2.3 (poisonous gas) or Division 6.1 (poisonous) materials. The transportation of a Division 2.3 (poisonous gas) or Division 6.1 (poisonous) material is not permitted if there is any interconnection between packagings.

 

Further down it says: 

(e) A motor carrier may not transport a package: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, bearing or required to bear a POISON or POISON INHALATION HAZARD label or placard in the same motor vehicle with material that is marked as or known to be foodstuffs, feed or edible material intended for consumption by humans or animals unless the poisonous material is packaged in accordance with this subchapter and is: (i) Overpacked in a metal drum as specified in §173.25© of this sub chapter; or (ii) Loaded into a closed unit load device and the foodstuffs, feed, or other edible material are loaded into another closed unit load device; (2) Bearing or required to bear a POISON, POISON GAS or POISON INHA LATION HAZARD label in the driver’s compartment (including a sleeper berth) of a motor vehicle; or (3) Bearing a POISON label dis playing the text ‘‘PG III,’’ or bearing a ‘‘PG III’’ mark adjacent to the POISON label, with materials marked as, or known to be, foodstuffs, feed or any other edible material intended for consumption by humans or animals, unless the package containing the Division 6.1, Packing Group III material is separated in a manner that, in the event of leakage from packages under conditions normally incident to transportation, commingling of hazardous materials with foodstuffs, feed or any other edible material would not occur.

 

It sounds to me like the foodstuffs and the poison were insufficiently separated by letter of these rules. Pallets touch and that is exactly what these rules prohibit.

(Source: CFR-2024-title49-vol2-sec177-841.pdf)