“同仁堂”磷虾油厂商称产品采购价格远低于正常水平,未添加磷虾油
TRTTRT(SH:600085) Di Yi Cai Jing·2025-12-16 10:34

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee has raised concerns regarding the authenticity of Antarctic krill oil products sold by Beijing Tongrentang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., following an investigation that revealed potential false advertising and consumer rights violations [1][4]. Group 1: Company Actions and Responses - The Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee held discussions with both the distributor, Beijing Tongrentang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and the manufacturer, Anhui Hab Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., regarding the issues with the Antarctic krill oil products [1]. - Anhui Hab Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. admitted that the product did not contain the claimed "Antarctic krill oil" during production, while the distributor denied knowledge of any fraudulent activities [1][4]. - The Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee has urged the distributor to conduct a self-examination, inform consumers accurately, apologize for the infringement of consumer rights, and collaborate with the manufacturer to recall the problematic products [4]. Group 2: Product Pricing and Market Presence - A bottle of "Beijing Tongrentang 99% High Purity Antarctic Krill Oil" was found on e-commerce platforms priced as low as a few yuan, with one product listed at 7.5 yuan for 60 capsules [3]. - Some related Antarctic krill oil products have been removed from certain e-commerce platforms, while others remain available for sale [3]. Group 3: Legal and Ethical Implications - The Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee's investigation suggests that the involved companies may have engaged in deliberate deception, violating consumer rights and market integrity principles [4]. - Legal experts have indicated that the low procurement price of the products raises concerns about quality issues, linking the problems to the low pricing strategy [4]. - There is ongoing legal ambiguity regarding trademark infringement claims made by Beijing Tongrentang Group against its subsidiary, with potential implications for the use of the "Beijing Tongrentang" name by the subsidiary [4].