[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
[4] On May 31, consumer Mr. Lin bought a 9.9 yuan coconut at RT-Mart (Wangzhuang Store) and finished drinking it that same day. The next morning, Mr. Lin felt severe stomach discomfort. He picked up the coconut he had drunk the night before to inspect it, and after peeling off the outer plastic packaging, he found that the bottom of the coconut was covered with a large amount of mold, red and black, which had even spread to the sides 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 at least 1,000 yuan in accordance with the Food Safety Law.
 
RT-Mart (Wangzhuang Store) argues that fruits are primary agricultural products and do not meet the compensation standards, so they can only offer a refund of 9.9 yuan or an exchange.
 
 
《[1] The People's Republic of ChinaFood 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 issues related to the "Supervision and Management of Quality and Safety of Edible Agricultural Products Sold in Markets" (Food and Drug Administration Food Supervision II [2016] No. 72), published and implemented by the former China Food and Drug Administration in 2016, the determination of situations where the sale of edible agricultural products is prohibited is as follows: "Due to the unique natural attributes of edible agricultural products, which make them different from other foods, consumers should perform basic visual identification of the product when purchasing, and after purchase, the product must undergo further processing such as sorting, washing, or heating before consumption. Therefore, any edible agricultural product that can effectively remove inedible parts through sorting, washing, or other methods to ensure food safety... does not fall under situations such as spoilage, mold and insect infestation, filth and contamination, foreign matter admixture, adulteration, or abnormal sensory properties." Clearly, moldy coconuts do not belong to agricultural products where inedible parts can be effectively removed through sorting, washing, or other methods, and 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 are subject to 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.