Miaoguanjia seeks NT$16 million in compensation from the Homemakers United Foundation: Judge says please provide the legal basis for allowing permethrin to be added to laundry detergent
A case in which Miaoguanjia (Miaoguanjia), a major domestic detergent manufacturer, sued for nearly NT$16 million in damages after the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation revealed that its laundry detergent product contained the insecticide permethrin, causing sales to plunge, had its first hearing yesterday at the Taipei District Court. The judge found that many disputes remain to be clarified, including whether permethrin can be added to laundry detergent, whether its addition must be labeled, and what the relevant regulatory basis is for the manufacturer's claim that it can be added, and asked both sides to submit supplementary materials.
In addition, the judge found that Miaoguanjia attributed all of its NT$16 million in business losses to the press conference held by the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation, and held that the evidence was insufficient and that a causal relationship between the two could not yet be proven, and asked Miaoguanjia to submit supplementary materials.
Lawsuit over insecticide in Miaoguanjia products
The case began on December 3 last year, when the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation, together with the NewsMarket, held a press conference to reveal that "Miaoguanjia Anti-Mite Anti-Allergy Laundry Detergent" contained the insecticide permethrin. But Miaoguanjia argued that current regulations do not prohibit the addition of permethrin, and that the actions of the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation damaged Miaoguanjia's reputation and caused sales of related products to decline, reducing the company's overall revenue by about 30% compared with the same period the previous year, totaling nearly NT$16 million. It demanded that the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation, then-chairman Chen Manli and secretary-general Huang Jialin bear joint and several liability for damages, and publish clarification statements in four major newspapers.
The basis for Miaoguanjia's calculation of the damage amount was that, from the press conference held by the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation on December 3 last year to April of the following year, the company's overall sales fell by 34.1% compared with the same period the previous year, with losses of nearly NT$160 million. Miaoguanjia claimed that one-tenth of its business losses were related to the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation, and on that basis filed a civil lawsuit seeking NT$15,888,753 in compensation.
However, the defendant's appointed lawyer argued that the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation's press conference at the time pointed out only that one Miaoguanjia product contained the insecticide permethrin, yet Miaoguanjia blamed the decline in sales of all its products on the defendant based merely on simple financial statements, which was too weak as evidence. Moreover, there was no causal relationship between Miaoguanjia's revenue losses and the press conference held by the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation, so Miaoguanjia's allegations were unreasonable.
After hearing the two sides' dispute over the calculation of the damage amount, the presiding judge also found that Miaoguanjia's evidence was still insufficient and asked the plaintiff's lawyer to submit more detailed materials for proof.
At yesterday's hearing, the plaintiff Miaoguanjia had a formidable lineup, appointing three lawyers to appear in court, while the defendant, the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation, appointed only one lawyer to appear, appearing rather outmatched. But at the very start of the proceedings, when the presiding judge asked Miaoguanjia's appointed lawyer, "Is there no mistake that the product in question contained permethrin?", the three lawyers were silent for several seconds before one lawyer answered, "That's right."
The presiding judge then asked the plaintiff's appointed lawyer, "Did the product in question have permethrin labeled on its outer packaging?" The lawyers were again silent for several seconds before answering, "It was labeled 'anti-mite antibacterial agent.'" The presiding judge then turned to ask the defendant's lawyer for an opinion. Jiang Xinzhi, the lawyer appointed by the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation, pointed out that Miaoguanjia had labeled only "Australia Health Guard anti-mite antibacterial agent" on the outside of the disputed product.
Unclear regulatory management makes trial difficult
During the proceedings, the lawyers for both sides each said their own thing about the properties of permethrin, whether it can be added to laundry detergent, and whether its addition must be labeled. The plaintiff's appointed lawyer argued that the government has not issued a positive list of substances that may be added to laundry detergent, so naturally there is also no prohibition of permethrin; the defendant's appointed lawyer said that the Council of Agriculture has research on the properties of permethrin, but there is no rule on whether it can be added to laundry detergent.
Because it was still unclear what the relevant regulations and competent authority basis were for whether permethrin may be added to laundry detergent, the presiding judge asked both sides to submit them before the next hearing so that the court could send letters of inquiry. The presiding judge also told the plaintiff's appointed lawyer that emphasizing how good permethrin is and whether it can be added to laundry detergent are two different matters, and he hoped the plaintiff Miaoguanjia could provide sufficient regulatory basis.
The Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation issued a statement yesterday afternoon, stressing that it had cooperated with the NewsMarket to hold a press conference revealing that the anti-mite function claimed by "Miaoguanjia Anti-Mite Anti-Allergy Laundry Detergent" actually came from adding an anti-mite agent containing the insecticide permethrin (Permethrin), in keeping with the core values of caring for Taiwan's environment and the public's right to a healthy life over more than twenty years since its founding, and with its public-interest concern, it continues to practice the idea of environmental protection.
The Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation stressed that the description in the press conference of the permethrin contained in Miaoguanjia laundry detergent was consistent with information published by the Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute of the Council of Agriculture, and there was no false statement; it also fulfilled the verification duty of a public-interest group in its sampling and testing of daily cleaning products.
In addition, the reasonable statements and comments made at the press conference based on the test result reports and the opinions of experts and scholars did not unlawfully infringe Miaoguanjia's right to business reputation. Therefore, the Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation need not publish clarification statements or bear Miaoguanjia's business losses.
Miaoguanjia's appointed lawyer You Kaixiong said that because the case is still being heard, he was not at liberty to express any opinion to the outside.
The Homemakers United Foundation Environmental Protection Foundation also called on detergent manufacturers to pay attention to the impact of their products on society and the natural environment during production, and the government's competent authorities should revise the CNS national standard for laundry detergent products as soon as possible, and fully fulfill their responsibility to safeguard consumers and the environment.