Sodium acetate? Sodium acetate? The merchant cited disputes

The original text comes from: http://wxbhfy.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2014/03/id/1231688.shtml
The "3.15 Consumer Protection Day" has just passed, and the issue of consumer rights and interests has become the focus of attention again. Recently, Wuxi City Binhu District People's court heard the protection of consumers' rights and interests dispute case, the plaintiff Mr. Fu think you in the supermarket to buy food does not meet food safety standards, then taken to court for compensation ten times, but the final court rejected the appeal of Mr. fu.

In April 16th last year, Jiangyin residents paid 29 packages of a brand of beef grains at a supermarket in Wuxi, with a total price of 611.7 yuan. But after buying the beef granules, Mr. Fu found that the ingredient list of the brand beef grain contained two additives: sodium dehydrogenate and beef flavor. Later, he consulted relevant information and found that there were no two kinds of food additives, "sodium dehydrogenate" and "beef flavor" in the national food safety standard for food safety (GB2760-2011). Therefore, Mr. Fu thinks that the supermarket sells food that does not meet the food safety standards, and the producers of beef granules produce foods that do not meet the food safety standards. So, he told the supermarket and the manufacturers to go to the court, and asked the supermarket to return the payment of 611.7 yuan; the manufacturer indemnity ten times the compensation of 6117 yuan.

The supermarket side that, according to the provisions of relevant laws and regulations, Mr. Fu buy beef does not belong to the unqualified products to determine the administrative law enforcement departments, and the beef did not cause Fu's personal or property damages, therefore, it should not bear the responsibility to refund the purchase price.

The beef producers raised beef ingredients in "sodium dehydroacetate" and "national food safety standards of food additives using standard" (GB2760-2011) in the "nadha" English, chemical formula, the encoding is identical, there is the same substance.

And "beef flavor" is the "flavor and spice" in GB2760-2011. It is only a manufacturer's "beef flavor" specially packaged on the packaging to make consumers clear their mouthfeel and avoid their dislikes, which is a way of considerate consumers. Therefore, the manufacturer believes that Mr. Fu is not entitled to ten times the compensation.

The court held that the "sodium dehydroacetate" is the Ministry of health in 2008 fourth, the announcement clearly allows the use of preservatives, the material and the "national food safety standards of food additives using standard" (GB2760-2011) "nadha" is the same kind of material, to meet the food safety standards. But "beef essence" belongs to the edible essence and spice, and the beef grains are not prohibited. Although the generic name of the beef grain packaging label does not contain additives, it is not standard enough, but it can not prove that it has food safety problems or cause damage to Mr. Fu. Therefore, Mr. Fu's appeal is lack of fact and legal basis. Accordingly, the court decided to make the above trial.

The judge reminded us that the beef granule manufacturer involved in this case changed the name of "sodium dehydrogenate acid" to "sodium dehydrogenate and sodium salt" after GB2760-2011 changed its product packaging without adjusting it immediately, which would lead consumers to question food safety. "Hunger breeds discontentment", food safety is always the focus of people's attention, the majority of businesses should be a warning, not because of the small negligence and backfire.