Recently, a Chinese-produced beer brand has attracted attention for its advertisements in major stores in Taiwan that seemingly use the Republic of China (ROC) flag as a background. Since using the national flag typically symbolizes domestic brands, consumers that do not carefully examine the product’s label for its origin might mistakenly believe that the beer was made in Taiwan, which might impact their purchasing decisions.
That issue not only involves the protection of consumers’ rights and interests, but also highlights gaps in the labeling management of imported alcohol.
According to the Tobacco and Alcohol Administration Act (菸酒管理法), alcohol containers must clearly indicate the “country of origin” and “no false or misleading statements may be made in the labeling on the container or the external packaging or brochures of alcohol products.”
In response, the Taipei City Government said that it reached out to the company for clarification, and would handle the matter in accordance with the law to protect consumer rights and market order.
Government departments also emphasized that the Ministry of Finance has clear regulations regarding alcohol labeling, including Article 32 of the act, which requires complete and transparent labeling of products, and Article 37, which restricts advertisements containing “content that is deceptive, exaggerated, fabricated, or easily misinterpreted.” If an investigation confirms any contravention of the law, the issue would be handled accordingly.
That incident has given rise to discussions regarding politics and fair market competition. Some people say that imported products have an obligation to have strong labeling management, to uphold consumer rights and prevent imported goods from employing marketing tactics that intentionally obscure a product’s country of origin, thereby influencing consumers’ decisions.
Others are concerned about whether Taiwan should impose stricter regulatory standards on Chinese imports to prevent a lack of transparency in product information from causing an unfair market competition.
In the past, the labeling practices of other imported alcoholic beverages have sparked controversy, and that recent beer incident again highlights the severity of such issues.
The authorities have intervened in the investigation and how the matter is handled would influence the regulatory trends for the labeling of imported alcoholic beverages.
If regulations are strengthened, future reviews of alcohol labeling and advertisements might become more stringent. Conversely, if little action is taken to handle the issue, similar problems might recur, potentially undermining consumer rights and threatening the market order.
Elliot Yao is a reviewer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS