Lin Chen/Wen
For ordinary consumers, even if the evidence is sufficient, it is often difficult to obtain "thousand-yuan compensation" when food deteriorates or foreign objects.
The division of responsibilities between manufacturers and transporters and whether consumers have suffered substantial personal damages have become obstacles to the difficulty of obtaining compensation smoothly.
However, in the view of legal professionals, the subject who makes the compensation should not shirk responsibility, and punitive compensation for is not based on the premise of causing personal damage. "No matter whether the accident is the core control of the brand, in the eyes of consumers, it is the brand itself that is damaged."
Food safety compensation is difficult: Isn't it considered a damage if I don't eat a disease? Isn’t it willing to make a standard manufacturer of 1,000 yuan?
Recently, a consumer in Hefei, Anhui reported to the Financial Network that after ordering a single ice cream at the McDonald's store, he found some hard black fragments. The consumer then took the black fragments to the counter to ask if the foreign object was a rubber ring or a spoon.
According to the recording provided by the consumer, the clerk told the consumer at the counter, "There are small washers on the machine to prevent wear. When pulling down, if the force is not controlled properly, the washer will be squeezed and dropped by stainless steel. We discovered it as soon as possible. When you came to me, I was telling him (colleague) not to sell it. Because one was discovered, and then you (customer) came. So we have stopped selling ice cream now."
Since half of this ice cream with rubber fragments had been eaten, the consumer went to the hospital emergency room with the staff. After the doctor diagnosed it, the two parties returned to the McDonald's store, but did not reach an agreement on compensation.
According to the consumer, McDonald's refused to compensate 1,000 yuan in accordance with Article 148 of the Food Safety Law. "They hinted that I was aggressive and had no health problems and insisted on them to compensate." The consumer told Caijing.com. "I have sent an email to McDonald's headquarters. They are currently admitting that there are foreign objects, but they just say that they have studied the law and will not compensate without health effects. I really don't know what law they are studying."
refuses 1,000 yuan in compensation on the grounds that the consumer has not suffered substantial personal injury, which is just an episode in many food safety disputes. Who is responsible for food spoilage/foreign objects is often controversial.
Image source: Beijing Consumer provides
Recently, a consumer in Beijing told Finance Network that he placed an order online and bought Master Kong from a large supermarket. He opened it during the shelf life and found that he had serious mold problems. After multiple rounds of negotiations with Master Kong’s salesperson in Beijing, the other party was only willing to compensate 500 yuan and asked himself to delete the exposed posts on a certain social platform.
"The salesperson said that Master Kong has always compensated ten times more than 1,000 yuan, and they applied for 500 this time." The consumer introduced to the Financial Network, "The salesperson also said that there is no moldy problem once a year. This time it may be the reason for transportation."
source traceability dispute: the so-called "occasional" may be foreshadowed?
The spoilage and foreign objects after food packaging are often difficult to obtain evidence and claim compensation. But it is not without success stories. Finance Network noticed that just one month before Beijing consumers revealed that they bought moldy Master Miaofu, a Yancheng consumer reported that they also bought moldy Master Miaofu and received 1,000 yuan in compensation.
"Master Kong's company did not come forward, it was a local dealer who helped me solve it." The Yancheng consumer told Finance Network, "but I never said what caused the deterioration."
Finance Network, looking through Master Kong's financial reports over the years, noticed that the convenience food category where Miaofu was located had a public revenue of 779 million yuan in the 2018 annual report, a year-on-year decline of 9.27%. At that time, it was announced that due to the low proportion of the group, although it would still focus on the core pastry category and actively adjust its product structure, it would not explain this business separately in the announcement in the future.Judging from the "other" category, in the financial report of Master Kong from 2019 to 2021, this category is basically based on the decline in scale or the decline in size and turning to losses.
Finance Network contacted Master Kang based on this and asked how he viewed the salesperson claiming that he "can't appear once a year", but in fact, it has been exposed twice in the past month. Whether Miaofu has been marginalized within the company, as well as the double compensation standards.
Master Kong told Finance Network that judging from Miaofu's sales, the company believes that "mold" is still a small probability event. Miaofu's factory has batch reports and has been randomly inspected more than 100 times a year. There will also be special processes to check for air leakage in the production process.
"But it is true that this cake contains moisture and nutrients. If it is not placed as required during transportation, and the shaking ratio of left and right is more than the regulations, it may cause damage to the vacuum environment and then leak air." Master Kong told Finance Network, "So our also reminds on the outer packaging of the product that if there is a broken bag leak, consumers can ask us to replace it." The "occasional" of food safety accident is not entirely accidental in the eyes of some consumers. Just a week before the complaint of McDonald's store in Hefei, a Guangzhou consumer reported to the Finance Network that when he went to the store to buy breakfast that morning, he found that the clerk made a burger next to the trash can and put his hand that had touched the burger directly into the trash can to put the garbage.
Image source: Guangzhou consumer provides
"I was waiting at the front desk to pick up the food. The clerk was making the burger, right in front of me. So I saw the clerk disassembly and assemble the plastic bags of the burger, but I was not sure if there was any other kitchen waste in the trash can. Then I saw her pressing the garbage bag several times, and then pressing the burger on the operating table." The consumer told Finance Network, "This store is usually very crowded, and I feel that there is not enough staff in the store. Sometimes the front desk cashier also helps make hamburgers. Moreover, when I go to another store, I will remind you to scan the health code , but I went in several times but no one asked me to scan the code."
Finance Network asked McDonald's through various means whether the work scenes presented in the photos taken by the above-mentioned Guangzhou consumers comply with the internal rules of McDonald's. As for the 1,000 yuan compensation proposed by consumers in Hefei, the store claimed that it had "studied the law" and refused. Is it because in McDonald's' view that diarrhea, vomiting and other diseases must occur to be considered as "damaged" in the 1,000 yuan compensation clause? However, no reply was received as of press time.
Industry: Punitive compensation is not based on personal injury, and food safety follows the first responsible system
"The thousand yuan compensation clause is not based on personal injury." In response to the above difficulties in protecting consumers' rights, lawyer Liang Jie, deputy director of the Intellectual Property Professional Committee of Beijing Kangda (Xiamen) Law Firm, introduced to the Financial Network that as early as December 2020, Supreme People's Court issued the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Civil Disputes on Food Safety (I)". Article 10 of
clearly stipulates that "food does not meet food safety standards and consumers claim that producers or operators bear punitive compensation liability in accordance with Article 148, paragraph 2 of the Food Safety Law. If producers or operators defend on the grounds that they have not caused personal damage to consumers, the people's court will not support it."
Liang Jie said that at that time, " People's Court Report " also released 5 typical cases. The third case revolves around this judicial interpretation. In the case, the court found that "although the consumer did not eat jelly with foreign objects and did not submit evidence to prove that the food caused personal damage to it, the punitive compensation stipulated in the Food Safety Law is not based on the premise that the consumer's personal rights and interests are damaged. Therefore, the lawsuit request of the consumer to request the defendant to return the property and pay 1,000 yuan in compensation is based on the law and should be supported."
In addition to the parties' disputes on the prerequisites for punitive compensation, how to determine the responsible party is also the key to protecting the rights of foreign objects in many foods.
Liang Jie told Finance Network that first of all, the food prohibited from producing and operating food stipulated in Article 34 of the Food Safety Law includes foods that are spoiled, spoiled, rancid, moldy and insect-related, dirty and unclean, mixed with foreign objects, adulterated or abnormal sensory traits, as well as foods that are contaminated by packaging materials, containers, transportation tools, etc. Secondly, Article 148 also mentions that producers and operators who receive consumer compensation requests shall implement the first responsibility system and pay compensation first, and shall not shirk responsibility.
may be some food brands that will push the problem to the partner when explaining the causes of foreign objects/spermia. In addition to the aforementioned doubts about the transportation process of Master Kong Miaofu, there are also cases where Taoli bread are suspected of attributed to meat floss manufacturers.
Recently, a Taoli bread consumer told Finance Network that after buying a bag of egg pine bread that was suspected to be a white silicone object from a flagship store, the store customer service was only willing to refund the money at first. When the consumer chose to sue Taoli Bread, the other party immediately changed his attitude to compensate 1,000 yuan and requested to withdraw the lawsuit.
Image source: Consumers public
"They probably don't know what it is, but because of meat floss, they said it might be caused by the meat floss manufacturer." The consumer revealed to the Financial Network. "I asked me to send the foreign object back after paying the compensation. I guess it needs to be tested."
Judging from Taoli Bread annual report and online promotion, the specific categories it purchased from the outside include flour, oil, sugar, eggs, leg meat, milk powder, etc. The list of suppliers displayed includes many well-known giants at home and abroad. However, there is no specific directional information about meat floss.
Finance Network Industry News asked Taoli whether it was inspected and traced after obtaining the relevant foreign object products? Is the raw materials for this type of Taoli egg floss bread purchased from outside? Does Taoli coordinate with suppliers to track down the source of foreign objects? However, no reply was received as of press time.
"In the eyes of consumers, even if the accident is not directly controlled by your brand, as long as something happens, the image of the brand is still damaged. After all, it will reflect the risks and omissions of your industrial chain operation." Zhu Danpeng, an industry analyst at China Food , told Finance Network, "I believe that many large food companies have the ability to think from the perspective of others. But the food chain is very long and complicated, and there are many uncontrollable factors. How to eliminate hidden dangers in the entire chain is the key."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-