The not-guilty verdict for Ting Hsin was long anticipated

General News Jan 1, 1970By Emily Carter 0 views

The Ting Hsin tainted feed oil case, which caused a sensation for a time, ended in an acquittal at the first trial at 5 p.m. today. According to a press release from the Changhua District Court, the main reason was that prosecutors could not prove that the source of Ting Hsin's oil products was illegal, and the inspection reports on acid value and total polar compounds of the end-product oil alone could not prove that it was feed oil.

Although many people unanimously criticized the judge, a professional who once worked in the overseas oil products industry, Lin Bay (a pseudonym), pointed out that the key point is that existing regulations did not include raw material oil under control, and that prosecutors made errors in the sampling process. Below is Lin Bay's original text.

The author once predicted in July that Wei Ying-chun would very likely be fine, and that prosecutors currently had a fairly high probability of losing the case. Now the first-instance verdict is out, and Wei Ying-chun and 6 others were all acquitted. Emotionally, it is very hard to accept, but from the perspective of legal attack and defense, Ting Hsin's acquittal was long expected.

1. Review of the background: In July, the legal attack and defense between Ting Hsin and the prosecutors

Products made using unqualified raw materials are, under Article 15 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, illegal products and must be confiscated and destroyed. They cannot be considered edible simply because they passed testing. In other words, legality is determined by the source, not by whether the quality of the refined oil is illegal.

The point of attack and defense in this case was whether Ting Hsin imported UCO (used cooking oil) as a raw material to refine lard.

(1) Prosecutors' points of attack

On October 12, 2014, Republic of China calendar, oil products sampled and tested by prosecutors were found to contain copper and total polar compounds greater than 40%.
Fats and oils are non-polar compounds. General crude oils and fats have a total polar content of about 1-8% or less. If oils and fats are continuously heated at high temperatures with water, polar compounds readily form. If oils and fats are repeatedly heated and fried, the total polar compound value rises. Generally, once frying oil on the market exceeds 25%, it can no longer be used. If it exceeds 40%, it can be inferred to be UCO (used cooking oil).

(2) Ting Hsin's points of defense

1. Prosecutors at the time did not sample according to the correct method, insisting on taking oil from the lower layer of the oil tank as the test sample. To make the sampling value accurate, the oil tank must be heated for at least 36 hours and stirred evenly, then sampled in upper, middle and lower layers and mixed to obtain the sample.

2. Prosecutors used a rapid screening method for testing. Rapid screening has no legal effect and requires a second standard laboratory test to have evidentiary value, but prosecutors did not conduct a second standard test, so it was invalid.

3. The Pingtung Health Bureau's test result was total polar compounds of 5%.

4. The oil tanks had all been sealed, so sampling should be correct and testing should be done correctly once.

(3) Result of the attack and defense

The prosecutors' attack failed and the evidence was invalid. The panel of judges ruled that in May they would go to Ting Hsin's sealed oil tanks, sample by the standard method, and send the samples to a laboratory for retesting. The May test results came out: total polar compounds averaged 6.9%-8.1%, aflatoxin and acrylamide were both not detected, iodine value fell within the standard range for lard of 55-72, and heavy metal lead exceeded the standard. Prosecutors currently have a fairly high probability of losing the case because:

1. They could not prove that the source was illegal, and there was no evidence of a crime.

2. They could not prove illegality from the refined oil, and all of it met food indicators.

If Ting Hsin did not take in tainted oil, then where exactly did Taiwan's roughly 20,000 tonnes of waste cooking oil UCO per year go? Did this disappearing oil and fat disappear into the air? Perhaps some kind-hearted person dug a huge pond, poured the oil into it, then kept stirring it with a water truck, and after aeration, the oil and fat were slowly decomposed by nature and disappeared? (Some countries handle waste oils and fats this way.)

2. The first-instance result on November 27: the two major keys to the prosecutors' loss

(1) Unable to prove that the source was illegal, no evidence of a crime

They questioned whether Ting Hsin's oil and fat source was illegal, but prosecutors could not present evidence that the source was illegal. In the tainted oil litigation, Ting Hsin and Cheng I were separated. That Cheng I might be guilty is almost an unavoidable fact, but Wei Ying-chun could likewise argue that he did not exercise substantive management over Cheng I. Many corporate chairpersons are merely nominal responsible persons; the real managers are general managers, and people who have run companies should well understand the relevant operations. As for the source of Ting Hsin's oil, they had already obtained lawful source certificates proving that their oil source was lawfully obtained.

To put it plainly, the end of making edible oil from swill oil had nothing to do with Ting Hsin. Prosecutors could only conduct their legal attack and defense from the viewpoint that Dai Han Shing was swill oil. Unfortunately, prosecutors could not prove this point, because Vietnam's used waste cooking oil (UCO, used cooking oil) still met Taiwan's previous edible oil hygiene indicators in terms of relevant indicators. If such oil and fat were refined in Taiwan, there would of course be no problem of an illegal source. As for the other oil and fat raw material portions, Ting Hsin could also present relevant import and export certificates proving that the sources were lawful, so it could not be proven that Ting Hsin used gutter oil to make edible oil.

(2) Unable to prove that Ting Hsin's refined lard was illegal

Ting Hsin's refined lard all met relevant food indicators. The May resampling results came out: total polar compounds averaged 6.9%-8.1%, aflatoxin and acrylamide were both not detected, iodine value fell within the standard range for lard of 55-72, and heavy metal lead exceeded the standard.

In other words, the values from prosecutors' first sampling were overturned at the start, and after the second retest the relevant indicators all passed. The only problem was that heavy metal lead was slightly over the standard. However, on this point Ting Hsin could argue that "because the oil had been sealed inside all along, heavy metals dissolved out, causing the heavy metals to exceed the standard."

When it was decided to resample, it was naturally greatly disadvantageous to the prosecutors, because even if seals were applied, there were too many ways to replace the oil in the tank, so the residual oil in the tank could naturally pass testing.

Was the oil in the tank fine to begin with, or did Ting Hsin swap it out in a sleight of hand? Probably only Ting Hsin and heaven know.

If prosecutors had at the time been able to obtain assistance from relevant health and oil and fat professional units, learned how to conduct standard sampling of oil tanks, then obtained over-standard results through rapid screening, and then sent the remaining samples to a standard laboratory for retesting, there would not have been a restart of a second oil and fat sampling from the tank, nor would there have been two very different test results. But history has no ifs, and they could only conduct courtroom attack and defense based on the second passing standard. Therefore, the prosecutors' loss was long expected.

(3) Did Ting Hsin take in tainted oil?

According to previous Environmental Protection Administration data, Taiwan has about 70,000 tonnes of waste edible oil a year. The biodiesel industry absorbed nearly 10,000 tonnes of waste edible oil, the feed industry absorbed 30,000 tonnes a year, and Taiwan still had about 30,000 tonnes of waste edible oil and fat (UCO) left each year. Where exactly did it go?

If a small water droplet travels through nature, going through rainfall, runoff, evaporation and rainfall, it cycles endlessly and keeps renewing. Waste edible oil may likewise, like a small water droplet, move through roadside small fry stands, waste oil collection yards, oil and fat refineries, blended edible oil, repackaging and small fry stands, also cycling endlessly and keeping renewing.

When we laugh at the powerful country for eating one-tenth gutter oil every year, how is Taiwan different from them? Perhaps in the world of eating recycled oil, the two sides of the strait really are one family.