Perils of the trusting shopper

We often go by blind faith in today’s world of fast-paced consumerism and that needs to be checked.

EVERY morning, I take five pills for my health. One is for my blood pressure, the rest are supplements I have been taking for years for my joints, eyes and energy. Recently, I added a couple of other supplements for my cholesterol and blood glucose.

I try to be a careful consumer by doing my research before I buy anything, especially stuff that I have to swallow. Still, I must add a dose of blind faith when I pop them into my mouth, meaning I must believe the makers of such drugs and supplements are responsible and wouldn’t want to harm their customers.

That’s what people in Japan who bought a red yeast rice supplement must have thought too. After all, the manufacturer, Kobayashi Pharmaceutical, is an established company founded in 1919 that makes and sells a wide range of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals.

Unfortunately, five people died and 93 others were hospitalised after taking the company’s cholesterol-lowering supplements, including Beni Koji Choleste Help, sold in Japan.

While investigators have yet to ascertain the dangerous substance in the supplement, the incident has sent shock waves in the industry and manufacturers of drugs and food have scrambled to double-check the safety of their products.

Bad things can happen in any industry. There have been recalls of car engines, airbags, phone batteries, toys, vacuum cleaners, drugs, food items and many others for dangerous defects or contamination.

Eating out can also be a health hazard as in the ongoing case of food poisoning in Taipei involving a Malaysian chain restaurant.

At least two have died among the 32 affected diners at two branches of Polam Kopitiam. The victims tested positive for bongkrekic acid, a little-known but deadly toxin, and had apparently eaten the restaurant’s signature rice noodle dish. But health authorities are still investigating as the toxin was not found in the noodles nor the sauces used.

This episode brings to mind the 1988 poisoning that killed 13 children and an adult in Perak after they ate loh shi fun made at a factory that had used banned boric acid.

I cannot recall whether the factory owners were punished, although the Consumers Association of Penang has tried to lobby for harsher penalties for convicted offenders.

Despite being banned, boric acid is believed to be still used by unscrupulous manufacturers as a firming agent and preservative in foods like yellow noodles and fish balls.

Most Malaysians would have forgotten the loh shi fun scandal and younger generations have no knowledge of it. That’s why we continue to buy and eat such foods without concern. I suppose most manufacturers are responsible, but all it takes is one irresponsible supplier and disaster will strike.

That’s the reason we live by blind faith. We forget easily and we assume that we can trust the slogans and claims that brands of all sorts of products make. We can try to research, check reputable websites for reviews, ask friends for their experiences, but in the end, it is still a matter of faith you won’t get poisoned or end up with a lemon of a product.

When I shop for groceries, I try to make it a habit to check labels and expiry dates. That was how I discovered a food item in a popular supermarket I patronise had a non-halal ingredient but wasn’t being sold in the non-halal section.

Concerned that Muslim customers might buy it unwittingly and it becomes an issue for the supermarket, I quickly alerted the branch manager who then told the staff to remove the items. This was a year before the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020.

Since then, I have observed the supermarket has stuck notices on the shelves for certain products reminding customers to check the ingredients before buying.

I believe this supermarket resorted to practising caveat emptor – Latin for “let the buyer beware” – putting the onus on the consumer to check so that the seller will not be responsible for problems encountered by the purchaser after the sale.

I assume this is the case for a business like a supermarket as there are too many imported items on sale which may warn against peanut allergies but not religious restrictions and it’s too overwhelming a task for the staff to check every single item.

Besides, many workers, especially if they are foreigners, may not have the language skills nor knowledge to ascertain whether the listed ingredients are halal or safe.

Caveat emptor makes it the responsibility of the buyer to research the quality of products and services in a transaction, especially those related to real estate.

In her paper, “The Rise and Fall of Caveat Emptor in Malaysian Sale of Goods Contracts”, published in Universiti Islam Melaka’s Journal of Law & Governance ,Nur Rabiatuladawiah Abdul Rahman explains the general principles governing the doctrine of caveat emptor: the seller must allow the buyer to inspect the goods to ensure that they are free from any defect before purchase; the seller has the right to remain silent and no obligation to disclose any existing defect; if any defect is found after the sale, the buyer has no right to return the goods nor seek damages.

This doctrine, she adds, applies to Malaysia’s Sale of Goods Act 1957, which was enacted based on Britain’s Sale of Goods Act 1893.

However, the doctrine has somewhat diminished in Malaysia and other countries with the growing awareness of, and the demand for, consumer rights and protection.

Hence, we have Malaysia’s Consumer Protection Act 1999. According to Investopedia’s article Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware): What It Is, and What Replaced It by Julia Kagan, caveat emptor puts too heavy a burden on ordinary folk to understand complex products and services, especially those offered by financial institutions. Indeed, how many people have the patience to go through all the fine print in those contracts and understand it all?

Kagan adds, “Many people accept the principle of caveat emptor where items sold in thrift shops and garage sales are concerned. They understand that a seller in such circumstances might not know the true condition of a product that has been used or owned many times over by the time the seller obtained it.”

What replaces caveat emptor is caveat venditor, meaning “let the seller beware”, which puts the onus on the seller to be sure that their products and services function as advertised.

“Unless they’re told otherwise, buyers expect that items have an implied warranty and can be returned for a refund,” says Kagan.

That is in the United States. In Malaysia, the Consumer Protection Act’s protection is limited because, as Nur Rabiatuladawiah points out, there are several provisions that exclude liability on the supplier and manufacturer’s part.

Back in January, after news broke on how a purchaser had to keep paying her car loan even though her brand new car broke down eight hours after purchase and the vehicle was left stranded at a service centre, there were calls for the government to enact a “lemon law” similar to legislation in China, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and the US.

Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Armizan Mohd Ali responded by saying the government was mulling over it.

It’s April now and that has gone quiet. Malaysians being Malaysians, we are quick to forget and easily distracted.

We have come to accept “they don’t make things like before” and that we get what we pay for, especially when it comes to cheap goods available on ecommerce platforms. We no longer expect goods like washing machines and refrigerators to last for decades.

Built-in obsolescence is in just about everything, especially mobile phones.

So how does an ordinary person navigate today’s world of breakneck consumerism fuelled by ecommerce?

I would say it must be a balance of both caveat emptor and caveat venditor.

For that to happen, we need to be smarter, discerning consumers, put the right legislation in place and have strong enforcement and effective punishment. And definitely less blind faith.