News 1+1, 10000 copies completed on May 3, 2013
——I only want a bottle of "clean" water!
(Program Guide)
Commentary:
From April 10 to now, the Beijing Times has published more than 20 reports in a row, pointing at Nongfu Spring.
Nongfu Spring responded four times in a row.
First, he was removed from the list by an association. Recently, he was suggested to be removed from the shelf by an association. Do you want to drink or not? Mineral water, mineral water, pure water, natural water, distilled water, which bottle is safe? National standards, local standards, and enterprise standards, which standards are protecting consumers' rights and interests? News 1+1 today focuses on: I only want a bottle of "clean" water!
Host Dong Qian:
Good evening. Welcome to the live News 1+1.
The water in front of me is all kinds of bottled water that our reporter bought in the supermarket this afternoon. In the eyes of our consumers, it doesn't matter what they are called. But for practitioners, what kind of standards does different water follow? Recently, there have been some disputes, which started from Nongfu Spring. The market share of Nongfu Spring has exceeded 20%. Let's take a look first.
Commentary:
The bubbling Nongfu Spring incident had new changes yesterday. A Notice on Suggesting Beijing Barreled Drinking Water Industry Sales Enterprises to Remove the "Nongfu Spring" Brand Barreled Water issued by Beijing Barreled Drinking Water Consumption Industry Association made Nongfu Spring the focus again.
Subtitle: News on May 3, 2013
Commentary:
The Notice on Recommending Beijing Barreled Drinking Water Industry Sales Enterprises to Off shelf Disposal of "Nongfu Mountain Spring" Brand Barreled Drinking Water requires Beijing barreled drinking water industry sales enterprises to immediately off shelf disposal of Nongfu Mountain Spring barreled drinking water.
Commentary:
As early as last month, the media also revealed that the health drinking water professional committee of the Chinese National Health Association removed Nongfu Mountain Spring from the association.
In fact, the query on the water quality of Nongfu Spring began as early as March this year. On April 10 this year, the Beijing Times published a report entitled "Nongfu Spring is alleged to be inferior to tap water". Two days later, a report was published that "The Drinking Water Association confirmed that the standard of Nongfu Mountain Spring is lower than that of tap water". Since then, the Beijing Times has been tracking and reporting on the drinking water standards of Nongfu Mountain Spring. Today, the Beijing Times again published a full page article reporting and commenting on Nongfu Spring.
In the face of the continuous reports and comments of the Beijing Times, Nongfu Spring has also posted four consecutive responses on its official website. Last night, the official website of Nongfu Spring published an article entitled "Beijing Times – who is lying about Nongfu Spring", accusing that the Beijing Times had never interviewed Nongfu Spring about tap water before the attack. The article also announced the emails and mobile phone messages exchanged between reporters of the Beijing Times and staff of the Nongfu Spring Media Department.
Today, Nongfu Spring also highlighted in the media that "the 'sky' of Nongfu Spring is the advertisement for consumers, people are doing, and the sky is watching". At the same time, Nongfu Spring also released 164 full sets of product quality inspection reports from the US National Test Laboratory, and said that Nongfu Spring is not only superior to the national standard for drinking water, It is also better than the FDA bottled drinking water standard.
In the face of the different opinions of the media and enterprises, as well as the requirements of the association for de listing and de listing, consumers can only become more and more confused.
Shanghai consumers:
It is better for the country to introduce a unified and identifiable standard, rather than for the business to decide.
Commentary:
What kind of water is it? What standards should be adopted? To the public, the Nungfu Spring incident seems to have revealed a bigger mystery.
Dong Qian:
"Nongfu Spring is a little sweet", which is an advertisement of the enterprise, but the fact that Nongfu Spring is a little boring is the reality of the enterprise recently. At first, Nongfu Spring was repeatedly questioned by a media for more than a month, and then recently, two associations that we had not heard of before either wanted to remove the name of Nongfu Spring or suggested that they be removed from the shelves. For more than a month now, as an enterprise with a relatively large share in the water market, we, as consumers, would like to know if there is any problem with it? For more than a month, we have not received a response from the authoritative department. So today we also invited Wang Ju, associate researcher of the National Food Safety Assessment Center, to listen to what voice she can bring to us? Wang Jun, when did an evaluation center like you get involved in such a politics? Do you have an authoritative result now?
Wang Jun, Associate Researcher of National Food Safety Assessment Center:
Since the beginning of media attention, the National Food Safety Risk Assessment Center has attached great importance to this matter, including the leaders of the National Health and Family Planning Commission, such as Chen Xiaohong, Deputy Director of the Health and Family Planning Commission, and the leaders of the National Food Safety Risk Assessment Center, who have attached great importance to this matter and have been paying attention to its progress.
Dong Qian:
Now that you are involved, is there a result, saying whether it is safe? Is there such a result?
Wang Jun:
Now the National Food Safety Risk Assessment Center is organizing emergency monitoring, so the bottled drinking water, including some corresponding indicators, is monitored nationwide.
Dong Qian:
So you mean that not only the brand Nongfu Spring is monitored, but also the whole industry is monitored in an emergency, right?
Wang Jun:
yes.
Dong Qian:
In fact, for us, if the water is safe or unsafe, the standard should be like a ruler, just measure it. However, after reading the questions raised by the media, as well as some actions taken by the industry associations, including some justifications of the enterprises themselves, we found that the standards they quoted were very different, some quoted this, some quoted that, some quoted tap water standards, and some quoted bottled water standards. When you are doing this monitoring, what is your standard for this ruler?
Wang Jun:
What you said is too true. In fact, as every consumer and common people, they are most concerned about the safety of food. So the national food safety standards, that is, our ruler, the lowest ruler you mentioned just now, are the ruler we have. For bottled drinking water or packaged drinking water, we also have such a ruler, that is, the current hygienic standard for bottled and barreled drinking water, as well as the hygienic standard for bottled and barreled purified drinking water, and the standard for mineral water.
Dong Qian:
Wang Jun, you see, in our opinion, it should be very simple to evaluate a food safety. In our opinion, it should be measured by several indicators. Isn't it immediately known whether it is qualified or not, and whether it is safe or not? As I said just now, I asked you, you said that a safety test is being carried out not only for Nongfu Spring, but also for bottled water in the whole industry. Can you make a test for Nongfu Spring in a short time? Is it safe or unsafe? Is this test complex or difficult?
Wang Jun:
Because of the specific testing and laboratory work, I did not participate in it, nor did I do it. As far as I know, our center is actively carrying out this work, and it should not take a long time to have an analysis of the monitoring results.
Dong Qian:
That is to say, you can't tell us now, because it has not been detected, so you don't know whether the Nongfu Spring is safe or not?
Wang Jun:
Now this work is in progress.
Dong Qian:
Ok, Wang Jun, we will have more questions for you later.
In the process of talking with Wang Jun just now, I actually mentioned a very important question, which is the standard. Because a standard is like a ruler. If the standard is clear, we can know whether it is qualified or unqualified after measuring. As for the standard, we will continue to pay attention to it.
Commentary:
The standard of Nongfu Spring is not as good as that of tap water. Recently, it was the relevant media reports that quickly pushed the event of the quality gate of Nongfu Spring to the forefront of public opinion, causing continuous attention from all walks of life. So for a large drinking water enterprise, which has been established for 17 years and has a quarter of the domestic market share, what is the fact that tap water is better than tap water? On April 10 this year, the Beijing Times reported for the first time on the production standard of bottled water of Nongfu Spring under the title of "Nongfu Spring is alleged to be inferior to tap water". The basis of the article's query is that the country has a standard for drinking water, while Nongfu Spring implements the local standard for bottled natural drinking water formulated by Zhejiang Province. Among the two different national and local standards, the media found that the limits of arsenic, cadmium and other harmful substances in the standards implemented by Nongfu Spring were higher than the national standard for drinking water, which refers to tap water, so the conclusion that Nongfu Spring is not as good as its own water was reached. So what kind of standard is the Standard for Drinking Water issued in 2007 and required to be enforced from July 1, 2012?
Subtitle: News on June 30, 2012
Commentary:
According to the national standard for the first time, the definition of domestic drinking water is water diversion and domestic water for daily life, especially that domestic water should also meet the standard. One of the biggest changes in the revised new national standards is that the number of detection indicators has increased from 35 to 106.
Commentary:
It can be said that the National Standard for Drinking Water is an important guarantee for China's water safety, which is the bottom line of standards and safety. In the face of the query that the local standard of Zhejiang Province implemented by Nongfu Spring is lower than the national standard, both Nongfu Spring and Zhejiang Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision have responded.
Since April 11, Nongfu Spring has made several statements on its official microblog, and will test its products in Qiandao Lake in Zhejiang Province, Wanlu Lake in Guangdong Province, Changbai Mountain in Jilin Province, and Danjiangkou in Hubei Province against 106 test indicators in the National Standard for Drinking Water, and publish the test results. The regulatory authorities in Zhejiang Province also said that their spot checks on Nongfu Spring in four years were also qualified, and the inspection was based on the most stringent and latest national standards.
Zhou Xiaolin, Food Production Supervision and Management Office of Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Quality and Technology Supervision:
The supervision and inspection is based on the Product Quality Supervision Regulations of Zhejiang Province. There is a regulation in this regulation. Article 12 has this regulation, that is, when the relevant technical indicators of the national, industrial, local or enterprise standards on which the products are based are inconsistent, the evaluation rules are formulated, and the products are inspected with the strictest requirements, No matter which criterion the evaluation rule is based on changes, it will be automatically updated.
Commentary:
Throughout the quality gate event of Nongfu Spring, the issues involved seem complicated, but for consumers, the only thing that needs to be determined and guaranteed is whether the water is safe or not. Therefore, how can Nongfu Spring ensure that the water in its four water sources is always safe? What standards should various types of drinking water enterprises use as the basis for product safety? And who should supervise all these problems? These are the issues we need to pay attention to.
Dong Qian:
In fact, is a simple bottle of water qualified or not? Is it safe or not? In fact, it is very simple, that is, the standard should be the final word. But now we can see that when the media accuse this problem, they present a set of standards, enterprises present a set of standards when they defend themselves, and industry associations present a different set of standards when they make various actions. There are so many standards now that the question arises as to which set of standards should be implemented. Let's take a look at the specially questioned Nongfu Spring. They wrote DB33/383 on the bottle. What does that mean? It is one of the bottled natural drinking water in Zhejiang Province, and DB is a landmark. So the media often compare this standard with GB, the national standard for drinking water. What does drinking water mean? That is tap water. Let's see, the media put forward three items, such as arsenic. The national standard for arsenic in tap water should be 0.01, but the local standard for the content of a substance such as bottled water is 0.05. Obviously, this caliber is much higher than it, which means its standard is broader than it. Cadmium is also 0.01, 0.05. Selenium, 0.01, 0.05. Then I have a problem. Wang Jun, you see, this media actually compares two different standards. First of all, we can see the difference, but the question is whether we can compare the national standard with the landmark, one is the standard of tap water, the other is the standard of bottled water. Can we compare them directly?
Wang Jun:
OK. From two perspectives, first of all, from the applicable objects of the standard and the objects managed by the standard, the two standards are not comparable. As you just said, one is for raw materials and the other is for finished products. From the perspective of production process and analysis, the comparison between the two is of certain significance. The raw materials have been met, so as a finished product, what should it look like? So from this point of view, this comparison is still meaningful.
Dong Qian:
I am confused. On the one hand, you said that it was incomparable, because one was raw material and the other was finished product, but on the other hand, you said that it was comparable. So is it comparable or not?
Wang Jun:
Just now, in terms of the applicable objects of the standard, these are two different types of products. That is to say, take a simple example, for example, when we talk about clothing, one is cloth, the other is finished goods, for example, we talk about pants, that is, the standards of pants and the standards of cloth, which are two different standards and apply to different objects. It is impossible to compare it directly. From another point of view, the safety or quality of the fabric is good, and then it is made into pants. From this point of view, the fabric is safe, and then there is no such problem as the impact of other hazard factors that may be brought by production and processing.
Dong Qian:
OK, thank you, Wang Jun.
In fact, I can probably understand what Wang Jungang just explained. Because Nongfu Spring is a finished product, it is a product, and its requirements for such a standard should be higher than that of tap water. However, the standard of the figures we see now is lower than that of tap water, so the media has doubts. But what is missing now? There are many standards for bottled water now, and the key is what we can compare with tap water.
Then Nongfu Spring was shot as a pioneer this time, which triggered people's thinking about whether mineral water, distilled water, and surface water appeared in the market are one standard or multiple standards. What should we do next to this problem? We continue to pay attention to it.
Subtitle: News on June 30, 2012
Commentary:
During the five-year buffer period, the New Mandatory National Standard for Drinking Water Hygiene issued in 2007 will be implemented from July 1 this year, that is, tomorrow. The Ministry of Health pointed out that compared with the Drinking Water Standard issued in 1985, the new national standard has strengthened the requirements for water quality.
Commentary:
Recently, with the fermentation of the Nongfu Spring incident, a huge question related to the new national standard for drinking water began to surface. In consumers' opinion, packaged drinking water should be safer and more reliable than domestic drinking water. But when the standard of domestic drinking water has been improved for nearly a year, has the standard of packaged drinking water also been improved? With this question in mind, the reporter investigated the packaged drinking water publicly sold on the market and found that its production standards can be divided into three types: national standards, local standards and enterprise standards. Among them, the national standards involved in the products alone are enough to make it difficult for consumers to clarify. Because of the differences in water quality and composition, there are national standards for drinking natural mineral water GB8537, national standards for bottled drinking water GB17323 and GB17324, and other national standards for packaged drinking water GB19298 except for bottled purified drinking water. There are countless local standards and enterprise standards, So does the packaged drinking water produced under many standards meet the new national standard for drinking water?
Our reporter Wang Yining:
The seven bottles of natural mineral water here all adopt the national standard GB8537-2008, namely the drinking natural mineral water standard. Comparing the national standard for drinking natural mineral water with the new national standard for drinking water, it can be found that the turbidity of mineral water in the national standard is less than or equal to 5, while the turbidity of drinking water in the national standard is 1, and the minimum requirement is 3. There is a gap between the two. However, a heartfelt inspection report by the National Food Quality Supervision and Observation, which was exposed by the media on "3.15" last year, showed that the nine barrels of drinking water from three brands submitted for inspection at that time all met the national standard for drinking natural mineral water, but the total number of bacteria in four of them exceeded the guidance range of the national standard for drinking water.
Commentary:
It seems that the national standard of packaged drinking water has not fully kept up with the pace of the new national standard of drinking water, and the outbreak of the Nongfu Spring incident is due to the local standard and the new national standard of drinking water. So, can enterprise standards be reassuring? According to the Beijing News, the mineral water produced by Coca Cola Yunnan Company adopts its enterprise standard - Q/KKK 0003 S-2009. In this standard, there is a lack of "total alpha radioactivity" and "total beta radioactivity" indicators. In addition, cadmium, an important toxicological indicator of bottled water, is also absent. When the reporter contacted the person in charge of Coca Cola's PR in Greater China, the other party said that they could not respond. Seeing this situation, the public wants to know why the packaged drinking water standard, which should be safer and more reliable than the New National Standard for Drinking Water, has not been updated, and whether it should be updated? What the public wants to know more is that these old national standards that are not as good as tap water have been delayed in changing. Is it the relevant departments that are in charge of the government or the enterprises that are obstructing them?
Dong Qian:
I don't know if you remember just now. After watching that short film, we mentioned too many GB standards and so on. We might as well take it out to see how many there are. We only found out a few of them, including the sanitary standard of bottled drinking water, the standard of bottled purified drinking water, the standard of drinking mineral water, and the sanitary standard of drinking water. Because there are too many omissions in them, they are just sanitary standards, safety standards, and quality standards. So the next question is still for Wang Jun. Why, It is a simple water. Although it has mineral water, distilled water, purified water, etc., why are there so many standards? When you are monitoring the industry and the market, which standard is the ruler in your hand?
Wang Jun:
What you just mentioned is the current situation in our country, that is, in the field of food, we have multiple sets of standards. Just now you have mentioned food quality standards, food hygiene standards, and so on. In addition, there are agricultural product quality and safety standards, and some industry standards. These are the phenomenon that we now have multiple sets of standards in the food field. Just now, you also mentioned what to do with so many things. Now, after the introduction of the Safety Law, a concept of food safety standards has been put forward. According to the requirements of the Safety Law, the Food Safety Standard is to integrate the current food quality standards, food hygiene standards, agricultural product quality and safety standards and the mandatory standards in the industry standards, and publish them into the National Food Safety Standard. It is also clearly stated in this law that the Food Safety Standard It is the only mandatory food standard, that is to say, there is only one set of mandatory standards in the food field in the future, that is, the Food Safety Standards.
Dong Qian:
That is to say, it is still in the process of formulation, and has not yet been implemented, right?
Wang Jun:
The Food Safety Standard has been doing this work since the promulgation of the Food Safety Law.
Dong Qian:
point the day and await for it.
Wang Jun:
This work is also in progress.
Dong Qian:
OK, thank you, Wang Jun.
I don't know whether you understand our program today after you read it, so I am in the process of preparation, to be honest, I don't understand. However, this lack of understanding just reflects a problem, that is, there are too many standards for our water, and too many standards lead to the need of today's market. So in the final analysis, we need a unified standard, so that we can be more secure.
OK, this is today's program. Thank you for watching. Goodbye!
