Beijing food dispute cases increased more than 5 times a year as professional fake people fake

The Beijing News (Xinhua Li Yutong) yesterday, reporters learned from the Beijing second intermediate court, food rights case, nearly 5 times in 2015 than in 2014, Super 80% for professional fighting man fighting. Defendant businesses, there are many resources such as supermarkets.

Last year handled 51 food controversy

According to the introduction, in 2015, two contract disputes concluded in two cases for 525, of which 108 cases in the second instance of consumer rights disputes. In these cases, 51 food safety disputes, almost 5 times the number 2014 times.

From the perspective of subjects, two home 2014 year 9 food disposed of the security in case of disputes, the "professional fighting man" 5 to initiate proceedings, and concluded in the 2015 51, "professional fighting man" lawsuit, 42, of up to 82.4% per cent, activist principal professional trends are clear.

In the second court, under the Food Safety Act claims compensation for 10 times the price for the consumer provides the legal basis for this to a considerable extent inspire consumers in particular "career match-fixing people" human rights initiative. In the second hospital in the past two years handled 60 cases of food safety disputes, consumers sued over 70% requests the operator to pay damages for 10 times the price.

Cases concentrated in the field of health food

From the field of human rights, food safety disputes are a common occurrence in prepackaged foods, health food. Second intermediate 51 food dispute cases disposed of last year, the subject-matter for health food, 18. Its main problems in additive did not clearly marked, deliberately exaggerate the use of features such as, there are also imported health food is not registered through the national food regulatory certification, achieve, "blue hat" logo.

From issue, more than half of food packaging labels label matters. From II in the hospital near two years concluded of 60 up food security disputes case see, consumers and operators Zhijian of dispute facts more single, only in 28 up case in the, consumers concern to has food itself true, and additives whether legal, and using function and claimed of whether consistent, matters, in remaining 32 up case in the, consumers prosecution by according to of facts are and food label marked content about.

Building food security "blacklist" mechanism

Second intermediate suggested that the Administration should fully consider the production capacity of producers, managers, should also have a dynamic control, a "blacklist" mechanism, there have been serious food safety problems, implement even lifelong market into a certain time period. In addition, should strengthen the supervision of focus areas.

Second homes at the same time recommends that the majority of consumers, to cautious trading, take good care of their evidence of sale of legal relations with producers or dealers, have dispute rights according to law.

Typical case

Huarun supermarket selling fake maotai were sentenced to 10 times times

Sun in the purchase of 53-degree moutai branch 7 bottles, after which 1 bottle sent to identify food inspection and authentication institutions, concluded that this wine was not of Guizhou maotai liquor. Sun then reported to the Secretary for trade and industry, Secretary for Commerce and industry will deliver above 5 in maotai liquor bottles to maotai liquor plant identification and the conclusion is: the submission not maotai wine factory, packaging, infringed the maotai distillery products the right to exclusive use of registered trademarks in Guizhou maotai.

Sun to court requiring refund branch, pay compensation for 10 times the price, and testing fees.

Court hearing considers that, according to food inspection and authentication institution and identification conclusion issued by the maotai Distillery, demonstrates that the sales branch of Guizhou maotai liquor maotai liquor was not, belong to the food did not meet food safety standards. Branch at the time of purchase should review and retain able to prove that he was the wine source and evidence of compliance with food safety standards, and providing purchases and sales ledger, but it did not provide, should be found in branch sales knowing that the wine does not meet the food safety standards involved, refund the purchase price shall be liable for payment of the price and 10 times the compensation responsibility.

(Editors: Hao Long UN654)
2016-03-16 02:36:18
The Beijing News

北京食品纠纷案件一年增5倍 多为职业打假人打假

　　新京报讯 （记者李禹潼）昨日，记者从北京市二中院了解到，食品类的维权案中，2015年比2014年增长近5倍，超八成为职业打假人打假。被告商家中，不乏华润等知名超市。

　　去年审结51件食品纠纷案

　　据介绍，2015年，二中院审结买卖合同纠纷二审案件为525件，其中，消费者维权纠纷二审案件108件。上述案件中，食品安全纠纷案件51件，该数字较2014年增长了近5倍。

　　从诉讼主体看，二中院2014年审结的9件食品安全纠纷案件中，“职业打假人”提起诉讼的有5件，而在2015年审结的51件中，“职业打假人”提起诉讼的有42件，占比高达82.4%，维权主体职业化的趋势十分明显。

　　二中院提出，《食品安全法》规定为消费者主张价款十倍赔偿金提供了法律依据，这在相当程度上激发了消费者尤其是“职业打假人”维权的积极性。二中院近两年审结的60起食品安全纠纷案件中，有超过七成的消费者起诉时请求经营者支付价款十倍赔偿金。

　　案件集中在保健食品领域

　　从维权领域看，食品安全纠纷案多发在预包装食品、保健食品领域。二中院去年审结的51起食品纠纷案件中，标的物为保健食品的有18起。其问题主要表现在添加剂未明确标示、故意夸大使用功能等，也存在进口保健食品未通过国家食品监管部门注册认证、未取得“蓝帽子”标识的现象。

　　从争议焦点看，一半以上与食品外包装标签标示事项有关。从二中院近两年审结的60起食品安全纠纷案件看，消费者与经营者之间的争议事实较为单一，仅在28起案件中，消费者关注到了食品本身真假、添加剂是否合法、使用功能与宣称的是否一致等事项，在其余32起案件中，消费者起诉所依据的事实均与食品标签标示内容有关。

　　建食品安全“黑名单”机制

　　二中院建议行政机关，应充分考虑生产者、经营者的生产经营能力，还应实行动态监管，建立“黑名单”机制，对出现过严重的食品安全问题的，实施一定期限甚至终身的市场禁入。此外，应强化对重点领域的监管。

　　二中院同时建议广大消费者，要审慎交易，妥善保管其与生产者或经营者存在买卖法律关系的证据，遇到纠纷要依法维权。

　　典型案例

　　华润超市卖假茅台被判10倍赔偿

　　孙某在华润超市购买53度贵州茅台酒7瓶，后将其中1瓶送至食品检验鉴定机构进行鉴定，结论为：本酒样不是贵州茅台酒。孙某遂举报至工商局，工商局将上述茅台酒中的5瓶送至茅台酒厂进行鉴定，结论为：该送检样酒不是茅台酒厂生产、包装，属侵犯茅台酒厂注册商标贵州茅台专用权的产品。

　　孙某诉至法院，要求华润超市退还货款，支付价款十倍赔偿金，并承担检测费。

　　法院经审理认为，根据食品检验鉴定机构与茅台酒厂出具的鉴定结论，可以证明华润超市销售的茅台酒不是贵州茅台酒，属于不符合食品安全标准的食品。华润超市在进货时应审查并保留能够证明涉案酒水来源及符合食品安全标准的相关证据，并提供购销台账，但其并未提供，故应认定华润超市在销售时即明知涉案酒水不符合食品安全标准，应当承担退还货款并支付价款十倍赔偿金的责任。

(责任编辑：郝龙 UN654)
2016-03-16 02:36:18
新京报