<br>Nanfang Daily (Reporter / Liu Guannan correspondent / Heaven Vision) Wang v. Blue Moon harmful products,moncler outlet italia, while Blue Moon counterclaim Wang reputation infringement - which since the two sides nothing to fall back from the beginning of June this year, in addition to "Guangzhou Jusco" Supermarket court, also was the spokesman for the Blue Moon Yang Lan also get involved. At present, the case has entered the "battle" stage yesterday, the Wenzhou consumer Yemao Liang Wang sued Blue Moon commissioned a potentially cancer-causing substance "fluorescent whitening agent" case, in Guangzhou Tianhe District Court.<br> <br>Wang legal battle for Blue Moon began in June this year and focus on the outbreak. June 14,0LA0uK9Tsj, Beijing Wang Consumer Wang Feng entrusted to Beijing Yokado store sales of Blue Moon liquid detergent irritate baby's skin caused by their "crying more than" grounds, to the Beijing Chaoyang District, Beijing court Yokado shopping malls; June 23 Wenzhou consumer Yemao Liang Wang entrusted to the Guangzhou Tianhe District, Guangzhou court Jusco supermarkets and Blue Moon Company; June 24, Wanghai Xuan said the Beijing Intermediate Court has sued the company and its products Blue Moon spokesperson Yang Lan; 6 March 30, Wang Youyi Chen Xiaobing agent identity to buy Blue Moon liquid detergent cause physical discomfort grounds, to Guangzhou Yuexiu District court Vanguard supermarkets and Chinese washing industry association.<br> <br>Yesterday, the legal battle in Ye Maoliang case to trial. Professional fake people Hai appearance on Blue Moon in a "condemnation."<br> <br>The plaintiffs: June 10, 2011, the defendant purchased Jusco defendant Blue Moon Company production of "Blue Moon liquid detergent deep cleansing treatments," without medical degree appears arm swelling itching and other symptoms after use, stop After the symptoms are no longer used. The plaintiffs believe that the case involving products that contain potential carcinogens, "fluorescent whitening agent,tn reuqin pas cher," but did not indicate on the packaging, but also promote "safe environment", has constituted misleading and false propaganda to deceive consumers. The plaintiff requested the defendant to Jusco Company refund the purchase price 20 yuan the plaintiff and the defendant to compensate the plaintiff company Blue Moon 20 yuan.<br> <br>Court Focus: Brightener whether harmful<br> <br>Court, the defendant said that Blue Moon liquid detergent is in line with the standard of qualified products, fluorescent brightener CBS additives used in the case involving the product in accordance with the provisions of the national industry can use, are safe and sound, the plaintiffs fluorescence increase White agents are carcinogenic, no basis in fact.<br> <br>For not marked on the product packaging fluorescent whitening agent, the defendant said the case involving the product just need to label the main ingredient. Fluorescent brightener content is small, is not the main ingredient, is not harmful to the safety of substances, according to the law does not require labeling,air max 90 pas cher, and the case involving products have been certified, proven to be safe and environmentally friendly products. Blue Moon company does not therefore misleading,6uo5UDwgGI,hogan outlet, consumer fraud.<br> <br>"National will phosphor characterized as chemical toxins, not deny!" In this regard,qwgL2SVvnC, Wang fluorescent agents endanger the health burden of proof that the State Administration of Work Safety issued the "occupational hazards classification", the "fluorescent brighteners "characterized as" chemical poison (Code: HX82) ". This classification is not on the "fluorescent whitening agent" of any kind or the chemical structure of distinction.<br> <br>Wang said, we all know, our health, quality inspection departments in addition to prohibit adding fluorescent brighteners in the food outside, such as food wrappers, popcorn bucket, toilet paper and other supplies are in the prohibition of the use of fluorescent brighteners column. Fluorescent whitening agents are toxic and potentially carcinogenic substance benzene, by its very nature is a chemical dye, it does not have the washing effect.<br> <br>"The defendant said that the international security phosphor, which is lying!" Wang said,dJbCs3Kcrm, indicating the number of light-colored clothes Water Wash clothing not use detergents containing fluorescent whitening agents, fluorescent whitening agents confirmed on many brands of clothing damage. At present in the Chinese market sales of some brands of clothes Water Wash, although Chinese is not marked can not be washed, but the Japanese and other text label that can not use optical brighteners, the reason is the accused,2Np10qdajq, such as the occupation and control of such a large market share of liquid laundry detergent business, the production of such damages laundry detergent, these brands in order to adapt to the Chinese laundry detergent market, to protect their market, at the detriment of consumers, can not conceal the fact that the use of fluorescent whitening liquid detergent, was forced to abandon these warnings, abandon good principle, the initiator or the defendant.<br> <br>Wang believes that China is not to be used in clothing with liquid detergent fluorescent brighteners non-toxic non-hazardous detection methods. So the defendant lip,91EG6TeF0R, said fluorescent brighteners nontoxic, safe and environmental. And product packaging, "guard Skin" and other propaganda belonging to mislead consumers false hype, brag about having cosmetic skin care products liquid detergent effect.<br> <br>Court, the presiding judge summarized the case for both the focus of controversy: 1,278kB248gd, the case involving products contain optical brighteners whether it will cause damage to the human body and clothing; 2, involved in product packaging to identify whether compliance with the relevant regulations, whether constituted consumer fraud. The plaintiff and defendant around the focus of controversy, the evidence submitted by the parties were cross-examination, and for the laundry detergent industry standards is legitimate,3J5n1M59jU,nike air max 90, containing fluorescent whitening agents and non-fluorescent brightener laundry detergent apply the same corporate standards are reasonable, the defendant The organization commissioned by detecting whether the qualification test is legally binding, optical brighteners and light-colored clothing qualitative and quantitative ability to use liquid detergent containing fluorescent brighteners and other issues in the debate.<br> <br>The case will choose a sentencing date.<br> <br>Welcome to comment I want to comment<br> Microblogging Recommended | today's hot microblogging (edit: SN026)<br>
DavidCadogan.ca Forums » DavidCadogan.ca
NYy2CGpWiD
(1 post)-
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.