Chinese Society of Law Dissipating Society
3.15 Briefing
Abbreviation (2021) No. 239
The difference between the fat content of the food involved in the case and the measured value
Exceeded the margin of error and did not meet food safety standards
Guangxi Nanning Intermediate Court: Change the judgment to support 10 times punitive damages for "knowing fake and buying fake"!
Chen Jinjie and Yulin Changchang Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Changchang Company"), Guangxi Guangbaijia Supermarket Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Guangbai Company"), Guangxi Guangbaijia Supermarket Co., Ltd. Yongning Store (hereinafter referred to as "Guangbaijia Yongning Store") product liability dispute.
On February 25, 2020, Chen Jinjie purchased 44 boxes of "Original Wu Changchang Niuba 1908" in Guangbaijia Yongning, and Chen Jinjie paid a total of 4017 yuan for the above goods.
The standard code number of Wu Changchang's cattle bar products involved in the case is Q/YCHS0001S, and the outer packaging all state that the "fat content" of the nutritional ingredient list is 12.5 grams/100 grams, and the manufacturer is Changchang Company.
Later, Chen Jinjie commissioned the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Analysis and Testing Research Center to detect the fat content of the above-mentioned "Original Wu Changchang Niuba 1908" sample, and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Analysis and Testing Research Center made an "Inspection Report" on March 13, 2020, and detected that the fat content of each batch was 45.3 g/100 g; 2 Fat content of 54.6 g / 100 g; 3. Fat content of 54.6 g / 100 g; 4. Fat content of 40.1 g/100 g; 5. Fat content is 49.7 g/100 g.
Chen Jinjie complained to the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Yongning District of Nanning City about the goods he purchased, and the Market Supervision Bureau entrusted Guangxi Minshengzhong Testing Co., Ltd. to conduct sampling tests on the "original Wu Changchang Niuba 1908" purchased by Chen Jinjie, and made the fat content of each batch of 45.3 grams/100 grams to 47.9 grams/100 grams. The above reports all state that "inspection items: fat" and "judgment basis: product explicit requirements " label value " 12.5g / 100g " inspection conclusions: the items inspected by the samples sent for inspection do not meet the requirements of the product's explicit quality requirements, and the inspection conclusions are unqualified".
Chen Jinjie believes that the fat content value contained in the "Original Wu Changchang Cowbar 1908" package produced by Changchang Company is inconsistent with the actual detected value, which infringes on the rights and interests of consumers.
The lawsuit was then filed with the Yongning District People's Court of Nanning City, requesting: "one refund and ten compensation", that is, 1. Changchang Company and Guangbai Yongning Store paid Chen Jinjie a loss of 3575 yuan for the goods, and Guangbai Company assumed the responsibility of supplementary liquidation for Guangbai Yongning Store; 2. Changchang Company and Guangbai Yongning Store compensated Chen Jinjie for 40170 yuan, and Guangbai Company assumed supplementary liquidation liability for Guangbai Yongning Store; 3. Changchang Company and Guangbai Yongning Store were sentenced to bear Chen Jinjie's testing fee of 1500 yuan. 4. The court appearance fee of 820 yuan for the application for the expert evaluator to testify in court shall be borne by Changchang Company, Guangbai Company and Guangbai Yongning Store.
First, the first instance held that the fat content of the food involved in the case did not meet the express quality requirements of the product; the food involved in the case was a defective label and did not mislead consumers; and the punitive damages were premised on causing damages. Support returns, return payment, do not support 10 times compensation.
1. The gap between the fat content and the measured value of the food involved in the case exceeds the error range and does not meet the express quality requirements of the product.
The court of first instance held that article 6.4 of gb28050-2011 "General Principles for Food Safety National Standards for Prepackaged Food Nutrition Labeling" stipulates that the allowable margin of error for energy and fat in food is less than or equal to 120% of the indicated value.
In this case, the fat content value of the outer packaging of "Original Wu Changchang Cowbar 1908" produced by Changchang Company was 12.5 grams/100 grams.
However, according to the results learned from the "Test Report" of guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Analysis and Testing Research Center and Guangxi Minsheng Zhongjian Inspection And Inspection Co., Ltd., it can be seen that the actual fat content value of "Original Wu Changchang Niuba 1908" purchased by Chen Jinjie ≥ 40.1 grams/100 grams, so the gap between the fat content and the measured value marked on the outer packaging of "Original Wu Changchang Niuba 1908" exceeds gb28050-2011 "General Rules for Food Safety National Standards prepackaged food nutrition labels" The allowable margin of error specified in Article 6.4 does not meet the stated quality requirements of the product.
2. Excessive fat content will not cause damage to human life and health, and the food involved in the case is a defective label; there is no misleading consumer.
According to daily life experience, the food involved in the case is not a necessary food in people's daily lives, usually the amount of consumption is not very large, and there is no evidence to prove that the fat content of the food involved in the case exceeds the standard and will cause damage to people's life or health, so the situation of the food involved in the case should be a label defect.
Changchang Company also did not make a special claim on the fat content, and it could not be determined that Changchang Company had misled consumers, so it would not infringe on the rights and interests of consumers.
3. Fat is not a substance that affects food safety, and there is no evidence to prove that the food involved in the case will cause damage to people's lives and health.
In addition, from the material nature, beef fat is a component of beef products themselves, belongs to normal nutrients, the difference in fat content is determined by the essential attributes of natural agricultural products, GB2726 "Food Safety Standard Cooked Meat Products" does not limit the fat content, "National Food Safety Supervision and Sampling Implementation Rules" also does not include fat content in the food safety index sampling items, so fat does not belong to the substances that affect food safety. Moreover, Chen Jinjie also has no evidence to prove that eating the food involved in the case will cause damage to human life or health, so the fat content value and measurement value marked on the outer packaging of the food involved in the case do not meet the requirements of GB28050-2011 "General Rules for Food Safety National Standards for Prepackaged Food Nutrition Labeling" and do not involve food safety issues.
Accordingly, Chen Jinjie's claim to Changchang Company and Guangbai Yongning Store for compensation of 40,170 yuan, and Guangbai Company's request for supplementary liquidation liability for Guangbai Yongning Store, which had no legal basis and was not supported.
4. Support the test fee claimed by the plaintiff, and do not support the expert's appearance fee.
Regarding Chen Jinjie's claim that the testing fee of 1500 yuan is to prove that the products produced by Changchang Company, Guangbai Company and Guangbai Yongning Store have the necessary costs that do not meet the explicit quality requirements, Chen Jinjie's claim that Changchang Company, Guangbai Company and Guangbai Yongning Store should bear the cost This court should support it.
It is not necessary for the appraiser to appear in court, so Chen Jinjie claimed that Changchang Company, Guangbai Company, and Guangbai Yongning Store should bear the appraiser's claim of 820 yuan in court fees, which had no basis in law and was not supported.
5. The manufacturer shall compensate the plaintiff for the loss of the purchase price and the testing fee.
Changchang Company is a product producer, the products produced do not meet the express quality requirements of the product, should bear the responsibility of the producer, so Changchang Company should compensate Chen Jinjie for the loss of payment of 3575 yuan and testing fees of 1500 yuan.
According to the principle of fairness, when Changchang Company compensates for the loss of payment for goods, Chen Jinjie should return the purchased goods to Changchang Company, and the part that cannot be refunded is deducted from the purchase price.
In another case, Guangbai Company and Guangbai Yongning Store submitted the inspection report of the products involved in the case, proving that the inspection items of the products in the documents complied with the provisions of the national food safety standards, and That Guangbai Company and Guangbai Yongning Stores had fulfilled their obligations to inspect incoming goods. Whether the fat content in the nutrition ingredient table of the outer packaging of the products involved in the case does meet the national standards needs to be identified by professional institutions to draw accurate conclusions, so even if the fat content of the products involved in the case exceeds the standard, Guangbai Company and Guangbai Yongning Store, as food business operators, require them to test the fat content of each batch of purchased products.
The People's Court of Yongning District of Nanning City made a (2020) Gui 0109 Min Chu No. 780 Civil Judgment, which ruled in the first instance: support the return and return of the money, do not support 10 times the compensation, that is, first, Changchang Company compensates Chen Jinjie for the loss of goods of 3757 yuan, Chen Jinjie returns the food involved in the lawsuit to Changchang Company; second, Changchang Company compensates Chen Jinjie for the loss of testing fees of 1500 yuan.
Chen Jinjie appealed to the Nanning Intermediate Court against the first-instance judgment.
The second and second instance held that the "knowing and buying fake" belonged to the consumer; the gap between the fat content and the measured value of the food involved in the case exceeded the error range and did not meet the food safety standards. The change of judgment supports 10 times the compensation.
1. "Knowing the fake and buying the fake" is based on the law and belongs to the consumer.
The court of second instance held that according to Article 3 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Food and Drug Dispute Cases, "if a dispute arises over food or drug issues, the purchaser claims rights against the producer or seller, and the producer or seller defends the purchase on the grounds that the purchaser knows that there are quality problems in the food or drug, the people's court will not support it".
Chen Jinjie should belong to the consumer in this case and be the subject of the qualified litigation in this case. Changchang Company, as a producer, defended Chen Jinjie's purchase knowing that there was a quality problem with the food involved in the case, and this court did not support it.
2. The gap between the fat content and the measured value of the food involved in the case exceeds the error range and is a product that violates food safety standards.
Due to article 6.4 of GB28050-2011 "National Standard for Food Safety, General Principles for Nutrition Labeling of Prepackaged Foods", the allowable error range of energy and fat in food is less than or equal to 120% of the indicated value.
Specifically in this case, the fat content value of the outer packaging of "Original Wu Changchang Beef Bar 1908" produced by Changchang Company was 12.5 grams/100 grams, but according to the results learned by the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Analysis and Testing Research Center and the "Test Report" of Guangxi Minsheng Central Inspection And Inspection Co., Ltd., it can be seen that the actual fat content value of the "Original Wu Changchang Cowbar 1908" purchased by Chen Jinjie was ≥ 40.1 grams/100 grams, so the "Original Wu Changchang Cowbar 1908" was obtained. The gap between the fat content and the measured value of the outer packaging exceeds the allowable error range stipulated in Article 6.4 of gb28050-2011 "General Principles for Prepackaged Food Nutrition Labeling of National Food Safety Standards", and does not meet the express quality requirements of the product, so the food labeling involved in the case violates the mandatory provisions of the state and is a product that violates food safety standards.
3. The manufacturer should bear the responsibility of "refund one for ten", and the merchant does not need to bear it again.
Changchang Company is a product producer involved in the case, and the products involved in the case that it produces do not meet the express quality requirements of the product, and should bear the responsibility of the producer, therefore, in addition to compensating Chen Jinjie for the loss of 3575 yuan, Changchang Company should also pay Chen Jinjie 10 times the compensation of the price involved in the case, that is, 29 boxes * 108 yuan * 10 times + 15 boxes * 59 yuan * 10 times = 40170 yuan.
Changchang Company, as a producer, has borne ten times the compensation, and Guangbai Company and Guangbai Yongning Store do not need to bear compensation liability. Chen Jinjie's request to Guangbai Company and Guangbai Yongning Store to bear responsibility together has no legal basis, and this court does not accept it.
In summary, the appellant Chen Jinjie's grounds for appeal were partially established, and this court revised the judgment in accordance with law.
On August 22, 2021, the Intermediate People's Court of Nanning City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, rendered the (2020) Gui 01 Min Zhong No. 11442 Civil Judgment, and the second-instance judgment was as follows: the judgment was changed in favor of "10 times compensation", that is, the first instance, the judgment of the first instance to uphold the return, return payment and testing fees; second, Changchang Company compensated Chen Jinjie for ten times the price of the food involved in the Chen Jinjie case, and the compensation was 40,170 yuan.