Summary of Key Points
Recently, there have been frequent instances where third-party inspection reports and internal company inspection reports for consumer goods (such as Yellow Swan eggs, freeze-dried strawberries, and pet food) conflict with each other. A investigation by Cailian联社 has found that the root cause is not technical errors, but a breakdown in the sample traceability chain. Inspection agencies generally use the exemption clause "responsible only for the samples received" to avoid responsibility, without verifying the source or authenticity of the samples. Inspectors (such as professional counterfeiters or competing companies) can easily substitute samples (for example, replacing ordinary fruits and vegetables from markets with branded organic products) and obtain authoritative CMA (China Metrology Accreditation) reports to discredit competitors, make malicious claims, or commit fraud. The industry faces issues such as fierce competition and unclear responsibilities, and there is a call for rebuilding trust in testing through digital traceability and improved regulation.
Detailed Analysis
1. Undercover Experiment: Substituting Ordinary Fruits and Vegetables for Branded Products with CMA Reports
Cailian联社 reporters conducted an experiment: they packaged ordinary tomatoes and Beibei pumpkins bought from markets as "Dongfang Zhenxuan Organic Beibei Pumpkins" and "Caihong Xingqiu Organic Tomatoes" and submitted them to testing agencies as traders. The results were as follows:
- Staff members from Punyi Testing (a listed company) in Shandong and Shipu Testing (a listed company) in Jiangsu did not check the source of the samples or verify whether the packaging matched the claimed brands; they simply issued reports based on the names provided by the reporters, including the CMA stamp (a nationally recognized authority).
- Even more surprisingly, when the reporters submitted the samples under the name of a defunct company, Punyi Testing in Shandong accepted them and issued a report despite recognizing that the company no longer existed.
This shows that the process of fraud can be easily replicated—as long as one knows how to package the samples, they can use ordinary products to pass off as branded goods and obtain authoritative reports to harm competitors or sell inferior products.
2. "Responsible Only for the Samples Received": A Technical Statement That Has Become a Protection Shield for Fraud
The phrase "responsible only for the samples received" is meant to indicate that the testing agency guarantees the accuracy of the data from the samples it receives, but not the authenticity of the same batch of products in the market or whether the samples are genuine. In practice, however, it has become a shield for the agencies:
- According to international standards and some local regulations (such as those in Jiangsu and Henan), testing agencies should verify the source and condition of the samples, but most do not.
- Industry insiders say, "No matter how accurate the test results, if the samples are fake, they are useless." For example, food companies may submit their best samples or even use qualified samples from competitors to pass off as their own. This is an unwritten rule; as long as the report states "responsible only for the samples received," the agency has no responsibility.
- Worse still, this wording encourages inspectors to be even more reckless since they don't care about the authenticity of the samples, allowing them to substitute samples at will and use the reports for malicious purposes.
3. Behind the Chaos: Survival Pressure and Unclear Responsibilities
There are two main reasons why testing agencies are so lax:
- Fierce Competition: There are 53,000 testing agencies in China, and smaller ones must lower their standards to survive—otherwise, they will lose business. An executive from a listed testing company said, "Agencies need to have integrity, but they also need to make a living."
- Unclear Legal Responsibilities: The law does not explicitly require agencies to verify the authenticity of samples, and they often lack the capability to do so (for example, they cannot confirm whether the samples were produced by the brand). Additionally, samples can be altered during transportation, making it difficult for one report to represent the entire batch.
4. How to Address the Issues: A Combined Approach of Digital Traceability and Institutional Regulation
To solve these problems, we need to address both the technical and regulatory aspects:
- Digital Traceability: Connect the data of testing agencies, companies, and regulatory authorities so that the origin of samples and whether they have been substituted can be traced. Smaller agencies lack the necessary digital capabilities and require government or industry assistance to establish systems.
- Improper Regulations: Require inspectors to sign commitments ensuring the authenticity of samples and to take responsibility for any issues; testing reports should clearly state whether the packaging is intact and whether the labels match the documentation. Regulatory authorities should verify the authenticity of samples submitted by companies, punish fraud, and expose it.
- Maintain Standards: Agencies like Huace Testing should require authorization and certification for adding brand or "organic" labels to products, preventing arbitrary claims.
5. Rebuilding Trust: Everyone Must Take Responsibility
Rebuilding trust in testing requires the involvement of all parties:
- Inspectors: Ensure the authenticity and representativeness of samples (no substitution or fraud).
- Testing Agencies: Verify the samples thoroughly (at least check packaging and labels and confirm the source).
- Regulatory Authorities: Improve regulations and impose strict penalties on fraudulent companies and agencies.
Only by addressing these issues can the phrase "responsible only for the samples received" no longer be used as an excuse for avoiding responsibility, and testing reports can return to their role as objective and impartial mediators.
This news report exposes a hidden industry practice: the authority of testing reports depends on the authenticity of the samples. If samples can be easily substituted, even the most authoritative reports are meaningless. To solve this problem, we need to improve the entire chain from production to consumption, not just blame the testing agencies. After all, trust is built through the joint efforts of all stakeholders.