Modern Express
December 2, 2009

Beverage company Nongfu Spring has been cleared of contamination charges, reports today's Modern Express.

In what the press has dubbed "arsenic-gate" (砒霜门), a municipal inspection agency in the city of Haikou announced on November 24 that samples of the company's Nongfu Orchard and C-100 beverage brands, along with beverages produced by UniPresident, were found to contain excessive levels of arsenic.

Faced with the prospect of compulsory recalls, Nongfu Spring complained about a possible malicious attack by a rival food company and sent additional samples off to the National Food Quality Supervision and Inspection Center.

It announced the results yesterday: NFQSIC reported that arsenic levels in Nongfu Spring beverages were below the maximum allowed.

So who do you believe? The local agency that first announced that it had found arsenic, or a retest completed by the Guangzhou test center of a national-level agency? It's difficult to know what to conclude from the contradictory test results.

Consider these headlines to two articles written on consecutive days by the same Xinhua journalist:

Nov 30: Nongfu Spring, UniPresident arsenic levels definitely exceed limits
Dec 1: Nongfu Spring, UniPresident retests all pass

A Xinhua Viewpoint op-ed on the subject, carried in the Modern Express, suggests that the national government is partly to blame for the situation due to its delay in coming forward with authoritative test results. The companies suffered, the public worried needlessly (assuming the national tests are accurate), and government credibility took a hit.

In the past week, an inspection carried out by a commerce agency rocked the food and beverage world: Nongfu Spring and UniPresident's beverages were accused of containing "excessive levels of arsenic."

Faced with opposing claims from the local government agency and the companies involved, the public awaited more authoritative test results, but no response from authoritative government agencies was forthcoming.

One week had passed, but authoritative agencies like the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Quality & Inspection Bureau kept their silence. Even though Nongfu Spring brought out reports from the National Food Quality Supervision and Inspection Center and the National Center for Processed Foods Quality Supervision and Inspection showing that the products in question had been approved, many people dismissed them because of their source, the company itself: "It's not fully convincing unless an authoritative agency comes forward."

Consumers were at a loss. One QQ user wrote, "Who can tell true from false?" Beijing resident Ruan Zhanjiang said that he hoped that authoritative agencies would come out with a correct, dependable explanation quickly to guarantee the public's right to know and eliminate the panic.

Three questions await an answer from those agencies:

Question 1: Why didn't the Haikou Bureau of Industrial & Commerce notify Nongfu Spring? Zhou Li, secretary of the company's board of directors, said that even now, one week after the start of the affair, the company has not received any written material or from the Bureau concerning the tests, or any notification of a fine. They learned of it from the media.
...
Question 2: Were the samples that Nongfu Spring submitted to the national-level test center in Guangzhou — the National Center for Processed Food Quality and Inspection — from the same batch as the ones tested in Haikou? The samples submitted on November 26 all passed inspection. Deputy director Wang Jianlu of the Haikou Bureau of Industry and Commerce believes that the samples his agency tested were from batches produced on June 27 and August 16. However, Nongfu Spring "tested a batch produced on June 28 in Guangzhou."

Question 3: Who should issue the safety information about the three beverages? The Food Safety Law stipulates, "the state shall establish a uniform system for the release of food safety information"; overall information about food safety, and food safety risk assessment information and warning information, shall be released by the health administrative department of the State Council. Conditions limited to a specific region can be issued by health administration agencies at the province, autonomous region, and municipality levels. Issuing food safety risk warnings is the responsibility of the province-level agencies, so did the Haikou Municipal Bureau of Industry and Commerce exceed its authority?

This incident has been a massive blow for Nongfu Spring and UniPresident. In some markets, the Nongfu Spring products in question have been recalled.

But we should be aware that the crisis of confidence that has hit the company is accompanied by doubts in the credibility of government agencies to carry out the law. People are asking: Who announces authoritative information to the public?