China's network finance and economics on May 20 (reporter Jia Yujing) on May 19, the topic "customers exposed in haidilao eat puffer fish poisoning" rushed to Weibo hot search, it is understood that the cause of the incident is that some netizens on the social platform published an article called "Haidilao puffer fish poisoning", said that on May 3, a group of four people participated in the Haidilao new product - "puffer fish pot" tasting activities, after eating four people appeared nerve toxic symptoms, sensory abnormalities, numb hands and feet, dizziness, and then emergency medical treatment. The netizens involved believe that the problem after many people in the same industry eat puffer fish is caused by food poisoning.
After the incident, the netizen reflected the matter to the haidilao store involved, proposing to let haidilao stop selling puffer fish products and compensate for medical expenses, but there was no response, and then the haidilao staff visited and comforted according to its designated location. During the period, because Haidilao only agreed to compensate for medical expenses but did not recognize the safety of food, the netizen was dissatisfied, and the latter upgraded the compensation claim to "in addition to compensating medical expenses, another 2,000 yuan and apologizing". Since the two parties failed to agree on the terms of compensation, the netizen said that he had complained to 12315 and the market supervision department.
In response to the complaint, the relevant person in charge of Haidilao told the financial reporter of China Net that the puffer fish series products are exclusively supplied by China Ocean Group. "Zhongyang Group has mastered the core technology of puffer fish breeding and poison control, and its artificially bred puffer fish breed 'Dark-striped Oriental Pufferfish' has been improved by 11 generations of technology, and has passed the test of professional institutions for ten consecutive years, which is an edible-grade puffer fish with no risk of poisoning, and can be eaten with confidence."
Subsequently, Haidilao showed reporters the test reports of multiple batches of puffer fish products issued by multiple authoritative institutions. According to the report, tetrodotoxin, chloramphenicol and other items were not detected in puffer fish slip, Chinese puffer fish fillet, and puffer fish bottom seasoning. The above-mentioned person in charge admitted that the store involved has received more than 200 tables of "puffer fish pot" new tasting activities, and no similar situation has occurred. "The store has sealed the ingredients for the day's tasting to cooperate with the relevant inspections."
"There are many species of puffer fish, and redfin, brown spots, dark stripes and yellowfins are the most commonly cultured species and are recognized, even if they are wildly toxic." Zhong Kai, director of the Kexin Food and Health Information Exchange Center, said that at present, domestic catering enterprises have selected artificially farmed puffer fish in large quantities, which have clear varieties of puffer fish, standardized breeding environment, and almost no toxins.
Zhong Kai believes that there are objective indicators of puffer fish poisoning, which can be tested by electrocardiogram, urine test, etc., and it is recommended that netizens should first determine whether it is puffer fish poisoning from a medical point of view. "In my past experience, when you see a breaking news in the media, there is a high probability that a period of time has passed. Consumers and merchants may have gone through several rounds of communication and tried to use public opinion to exert pressure because compensation negotiations were not close. ”
The netizens involved updated their social platform accounts, saying that they had "never contacted the media"
It is worth mentioning that in order to understand the detailed process of the incident and the progress of development, the financial reporter of China Net has tried to get in touch with the netizens involved many times, but as of press time, there has been no reply. The reporter noted that in the new content of the netizen's social platform account, he said that he had "never contacted the media": "There are many marketing numbers and media to contact us, but we have not replied to any media."
In this regard, Feng Zichen, a lawyer at Beijing Hairun Tianrui Law Firm, analyzed that on the one hand, Haidilao should be responsible for the quality of the food it provides, provide the corresponding batch of inspection certificates and actively cooperate with relevant government departments to inspect the same batch of retained food; on the other hand, although food (product) liability cases are applicable to no-fault liability according to the Mainland Tort Liability Law (that is, consumers do not have to prove whether the merchant is at fault), consumers still need to pay attention to the tortious acts, damage consequences and causal relationships ( that is, the damage to their physical health is caused by the food provided by the eating merchant) to prove. "Consumers can obtain a diagnosis report from the hospital that their physical discomfort is due to food poisoning, and if possible, medical tests are carried out on the poisoning ingredients and other conditions of the body, so as to synthesize relevant evidence to prove whether their physical damage is caused by eating food provided by the merchant."
Feng Zichen said that if the merchant provides the inspection certificate of the same batch of food and the relevant institutions have not detected problems in the inspection of the retained samples, and there is no physical discomfort of other consumers in the same batch, in the case that the consumer cannot provide evidence to prove that his physical discomfort is caused by food poisoning, it is difficult to expel from the factual point of view that it is due to other reasons for his physical discomfort, it is difficult to prove that there is a causal relationship between the occurrence of physical damage and the food provided by the edible merchant, and its claim will be difficult to support from a legal point of view.
(Editor-in-Charge: Wang Qingyu)