Anti-coprophagia alliance criticizes Ting Hsin verdict

NO SHIT: NTU professor Chen Chih-lung said the court’s decision in the Ting Hsin case violated the law because it ignored expert opinion and common sense

By Abraham Gerber / Staff reporter





The Changhua District Court ignored expert opinion when it acquitted former Ting Hsin International Group (頂新集團) executive Wei Ying-chun (魏應充) and other defendants in an adulterated cooking oil case, academics said yesterday at an inauguration ceremony for the “National Anti-Coprophagia Alliance” (全民拒吃大便聯盟).

Participants led by Taiwan Financial and Criminal Law Research Association president Chen Chih-lung (陳志龍) stood in solidarity, wearing badges featuring pictures of excrement and holding signs opposing Ting Hsin’s “shit oil” and telling the firm to “swallow your own shit.”

Wei and other company officials were acquitted of the charges of passing off imported adulterated animal-feed grade oil as fit for human consumption on the grounds that prosecutors failed to prove the existence of unsanitary manufacturing processes or that fat had been sourced from unhealthy animals.

Members of the “National Anti-Coprophagia Alliance” display their logo yesterday in Taipei in the wake of food safety incidents involving Ting Hsin International Group. Photo: Liao Chen-huei, Taipei Times

The Changhua County Prosecutors’ Office has stated that it would appeal the decision.

Chen — a professor of law at National Taiwan University — accused the court of playing logical “hide and seek,” failing to apply the required legal tests.

He said the court’s decision focused on the question of whether it could be demonstrated that the adulterated oils were inedible, rather than whether the corporation had demonstrated an intention to deceive consumers, as required by fraud charges.

The court’s decision also violated the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) for weighing evidence by ignoring expert opinion and common sense, he said, adding that the complicated process by which Ting Hsin refined the imported oils was sufficient to demonstrate an intention to deceive.

“The defendants’ statement that all oils are refined is flat wrong. Good oils are not refined — only bad oils,” Chen said, adding that the court reached its conclusion that Ting Hsin’s oil “was not necessarily inedible” because it ignored expert opinion about oil processing.

“How can we tell the defendants knew that they were using cheap materials? All we have to do is look at their processing, because it is common knowledge that food oils are fresh oils and normal processing involves pressing the original product and then isolating it to prevent decay — it is a very simple process,” he said.

By contrast, Ting Hsin refined the oil using processes typical for non-food-grade industrial, diesel and feed oils, Chen said, adding the deodorization, deacidization, bleaching and recoloration of the oil demonstrated that the company had sought to “pass off” an inferior product to consumers.