Mi Ya Le Company violated the fair Trade Law for false advertising on Mi Ssu Feng fruit and vegetable detoxifier
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Mi Ya Le Company violated the fair Trade Law for false advertising on Mi Ssu Feng fruit and vegetable detoxifier
Key words:
false advertisement
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of the 321st Commission Meeting; Disposition (87) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 110
Industry:
Uncategorized, Other Industrial Products Manufacturing Industry (3999)
Relevant Laws:
Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
Mi Ya Le Company [the respondent] produced videocassettes for advertising the product of Mi Ssu Feng fruit and vegetable detoxifier. In the film, it contained a live fish experiment. in the live fish experiment, 2/1000 liter of pesticide was mixed in 30 to 40 liters of water. The subject detoxifier processed the solution for 15 minutes before the live fish (about 5 cm in length) was placed in the solution and the fish remained alive in order to prove the function of detoxifier. In addition, the respondent printed and sent out advertising fliers to its distributors. On the said fliers, the respondent indicated, by quoting the report from Anti-Pollution Group of Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), that ozone is capable of decomposing organic compounds into carbon dioxide, water and other simpler compounds. The indication also claimed that the subject detoxifier can remove 99.5% or more of toxicants such as methybenzene, ethanol, acetone, carbon monoxide, manganese, cyanide and cyanide. Such an indication placed next to the listing of the said toxicants also claimed that the experiment lasted 15 minutes, and that the detoxification rate was 99.5% or higher.
As the Fair Trade Commission’s investigation showed, agricultural pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables are of concern as the pesticides may be difficult to cleanse. Through the biochemical functions of the fruit and vegetables, the pesticides may remain in the surface folds of the fruit and vegetables. Should it be otherwise, fruit and vegetable could be cleansed with clear water, and no special cleansing device would be needed. The reason why the fish used in the experiment remained alive is that the toxicant of the pesticide used was substantially diluted and evaporated in the massive bubble produced in the course of the operation of the detoxifier. The pesticide used in the experiment is different from those generally used in the plantation of fruit and vegetables. Given the great variety of pesticides available in the market, the respondent should not have named its product a "detoxifier" simply based on its ability to keep the fish alive after processing the pesticide used in the experiment, when in fact the pesticide is one of short-term function. Accordingly, for the advertisement it released for promoting products, the respondent is considered to have engaged in acts of making false, untrue and exaggerated representation.
The Commission’s investigation also found that there does not exist a sub-unit of the MOEA named "Anti-Pollution Group," and the alleged report bears no indication of the source. In addition, the respondent has been unable to give any explanation or produce substantive evidence to prove such alleged function as printed in the advertisement indicating that ozone could detoxify methylbenzene, ethanol, acetone, carbon monoxide, manganese and cyanide. Moreover, by indicating that the experiment lasted 15 minutes and that the detoxification rate was 99.5% or higher the respondent misled the reader to believe the alleged 99.5% decomposing function of the subject detoxifier. Having achieved its promotional purposes, although the respondent made clear that the advertising literature was misplaced out of editorial error, the advertisement nonetheless was obviously a false, untrue, and misleading representation. Therefore, the respondent has violated the provisions of Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Law.
Summarized by Yin, Shih Hsi