Why do Pepsi and Pepsi expose orange juice with a small amount of fungicide?

Leading Words: According to the thinking of some developing countries, only if there are major food safety accidents will the company surface, apologize, and be fined. If it is serious, the company will be closed down or be acquired, but in the absence of a food safety accident, it will be delicious, Why did Pepsi these two old brands expose orange juice to a small amount of fungicides? In this regard, some people in the industry have stated that the quality issues of Pepsi and Pepsi reveal that the quality of professional ethics of international brands is reflected on the one hand, and it also shows that the United States has implemented a severe punishment system for companies with quality problems.

US time on January 14, 2012, PepsiCo announced that the test results show that the company's "True Fruit" orange juice contains trace amounts (refer to a very small amount) of the fungicide carbendazim. Previously, Coca-Cola also reminded consumers that after self-examination, they discovered that Brazilian growers sprayed the orange tree with fungicides that were banned by the United States.

However, after that, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola announced that, according to the test results, the content of carbendazim, which is an orange juice fungicide, is lower than the standards set by the US federal regulatory agency to cause public safety concerns, and therefore does not constitute a health risk.

According to the thinking of some developing countries, only when there is a major food safety accident will the company surface, apologize, and if it is fine, the company will close down or be acquired, but in the absence of a food safety accident, it will be delicious and Pepsi. Why do two brands expose orange juice with a small amount of bactericide? In this regard, some people in the industry have stated that the quality issues of Pepsi and Pepsi reveal that the quality of professional ethics of international brands is reflected on the one hand, and it also shows that the United States has implemented a severe punishment system for companies with quality problems.

The United States is a country with a relatively complete and sound food safety system in the world. A strict food safety supervision system, a recall system, and a punitive damages system can be said to be the three sharpest swords in the United States for maintaining food safety. The McDonald's Coffee Burns case in the United States is an example. In 1992, a retired female cashier spent 49 cents to buy a cup of coffee at McDonald's. When she added milk and sugar to her car, she was splashed and burned her skin. After hospitalization and skin grafting, her family was overheated with coffee. A total of 20,000 U.S. dollars were required for McDonald's compensation for medical expenses and medical expenses. However, McDonald's only agreed to pay a "consolation fee" of eight hundred U.S. dollars. After the case was eventually appealed to the law, McDonald's paid a huge responsibility of US$ 2.86 million. Compensation ends.

The delicious, Pepsi-Self-exposed orange juice contains a small amount of bactericidal agent is for their own "to stay behind the road", or is it ethical considerations this issue we do not discuss, but there is a problem is affirmative, in the case of domestic food safety problems, if domestic The company can do its own exposure to quality problems, then the domestic food safety problem is not a problem.

Of course, the solution to the problem of food safety in China cannot rely solely on the self-discipline of the enterprise, but it also requires the protection of relevant laws. According to industry insiders, China should pay attention to the role of punitive damages and impose high pressure on food safety violations. Lost money."