Coconut mold leads to claim, RT-Mart's excuse fails!

[2] Compiled from: China Consumer News
 
[3] A consumer bought a moldy coconut, but RT-Mart supermarket claimed that primary agricultural products do not meet compensation standards. Is that really the case? Recently, the Fuzhou Consumer Rights Protection Committee in Fujian Province spoke out on this incident, stating that edible agricultural products are also food, and the moldy coconut was caused by poor supermarket management, so compensation should be made according to the Food Safety Law.

 
 

Case review
On May 31, consumer Mr. Lin bought a coconut for 9.9 yuan at RT-Mart (Wangzhuang Store) and finished drinking it the same day. The next morning, Mr. Lin felt severe abdominal discomfort. He picked up the coconut he had drunk from the night before to examine it and, after peeling off the outer plastic wrapping, discovered that the bottom of the coconut was covered with a large amount of mold that was red and black, and had even spread to the side of the coconut.

 
 

Mr. Lin immediately went to RT-Mart (Wangzhuang Store) again to inspect the coconuts on sale, and found that many had mold spots on the bottom.
 
Mr. Lin believes that in this situation, the supermarket should compensate a minimum of 1,000 yuan in accordance with the Food Safety Law.
 
RT-Mart (Wangzhuang Store) supermarket, however, argued that fruit is a primary agricultural product and does not meet the compensation criteria, offering only a refund of 9.9 yuan or an exchange.
 
 
The [1] The People's Republic of China Food Safety Law
Article 148 
Consumers who suffer damage due to food that does not meet food safety standards may claim compensation from the operator or the producer. The producer or operator that receives a consumer's compensation claim shall implement a first-liability system, pay compensation first, and not shirk responsibility; if the producer is liable, the operator has the right to seek recourse from the producer after compensation; if the operator is liable, the producer has the right to seek recourse from the operator after compensation.
 
If food is produced that does not meet food safety standards, or if an operator knowingly sells food that does not meet food safety standards, consumers may, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, demand from the producer or operator a payment of ten times the price or three times the loss; if the additional compensation is less than 1,000 yuan, it shall be 1,000 yuan. However, this does not apply to defects in food labels or instructions that do not affect food safety and will not mislead consumers.
 
 
Article 150
Food refers to various finished products and raw materials for human consumption or drinking, as well as items that are traditionally both food and Chinese medicinal materials.
 
 
Consumer Council's View
First, edible agricultural products are also food. According to Article 150 of the Food Safety Law, the concept of food includes edible agricultural products.
 
Second, according to the Notice on Relevant Issues Concerning the Supervision and Administration of Quality and Safety of Edible Agricultural Products Market Sales, promulgated and implemented by the former State Food and Drug Administration in 2016 (SFDA Food Supervision No. 72 [2016]), the determination of circumstances under which the sale of edible agricultural products is prohibited is as follows: “Due to the inherent natural properties of edible agricultural products, which distinguish them from other foods, consumers should conduct a basic visual identification of the products at the time of purchase, and the products can only be consumed after undergoing reprocessing such as sorting, washing, or heating after purchase. Therefore, any edible agricultural products whose inedible parts can be effectively removed through sorting, washing, or other means to ensure food safety…… shall not be deemed to fall under circumstances such as spoilage and deterioration, mildew and insect infestation, filth and contamination, admixture of foreign substances, adulteration, or abnormal sensory characteristics.” Obviously, moldy coconuts do not fall within the category of agricultural products whose inedible parts can be effectively removed through sorting, washing, or other means, and therefore are not within the scope of exemption.
 
Additionally, the investigation found that the packaging of this batch of coconuts indicated they needed to be stored in refrigeration, and the supermarket had poor management. The supermarket stacked the boxed coconuts on the ground in the coconut sales area, failed to store them in refrigeration as required, and did not promptly dispose of the moldy and abnormal coconuts, failing to fulfill its food safety responsibilities. Its behavior constitutes operating with the knowledge that the food does not meet food safety standards.
 
Therefore, moldy coconuts fall under the provisions of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, and the consumer's claim for 1,000 yuan in compensation is well-founded.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
As a business venue closely related to people's livelihoods, supermarkets must not only ensure product quality but also fulfill management obligations for special goods, especially fresh food. If not stored using proper methods, it may lead to food spoilage. At this point, if inspection is neglected, the food may end up in consumers' hands, and once consumed, it can easily cause physical discomfort or even harm health. This shows that seemingly minor negligence can lead to major problems.
 
For supermarkets, when problems arise, they should face them bravely rather than find excuses to evade responsibility. Otherwise, they may not only lose customer traffic but also face issues with business credibility.