I raised a RMB 1,000 claim based on my understanding of Article 148 of China’s Food Safety Law. A representative told me there needed to be a “batch-wide abnormality.” I could not find such a requirement in Article 148. Later I was simply told RMB 1,000 was “too high.”
What was I offered instead? Free Master Kong products. After reporting that I had already put the contaminated drink in my mouth and bitten into a foreign object, the proposed solution was essentially to give me more products. I refused.
So I asked a simple question: if the cause has not been established, what evidence proves “improper storage”? Manufacturer’s warehouse? Transport? Distributor? Retailer? And what evidence excludes production, packaging or capping? I still have not received a clear answer.
Master Kong representatives discussed the insect contamination with me. But when I asked how it happened, the explanations became inconsistent. I was told the product’s journey could not be fully monitored and the cause was speculative, while “improper storage” was also suggested
My evidence does not consist of photos alone. I retained the bottle, cap, insect-related material, original photos and videos, payment record, product/batch information, WeChat conversations and recordings of multiple calls with company representatives
This was not just an unidentified black speck. I found visible insect bodies and insect-related remains around the area covered by the cap. I photographed and filmed what I found and kept the original bottle, cap and physical evidence.
I bought a bottle of Master Kong (康师傅) green tea in China. While drinking it, I bit into a foreign object and immediately spat it out. I then inspected the bottle and found visible insect contamination underneath the cap, around the threaded bottle neck.