Background of the Case

The case involves Coca-Cola Beverages Sri Lanka Ltd., accused of violating Sri Lanka’s Food Act, No. 26 of 1980, and Food (Labelling and Advertising) Regulations 2005 by selling a bottle of “Lion” ginger beer that allegedly lacked essential label information, including the batch number, date of manufacture, and expiry date. The initial complaint was raised by W.G.S.L. Wasala, a Public Health Officer, who discovered the unlabelled bottle in 2010 and initiated proceedings against Coca-Cola in the Magistrate’s Court of Kebithigollawa. The court convicted Coca-Cola, but the decision was appealed to the High Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court identified two key legal questions:

1. Applicability of the Food (Labelling and Advertising) Regulations: Does the regulation cover manufacturers for labeling defects?
2. Ambiguity of Charges: Were the charges ambiguous by including both “manufacturing” and “distribution” under one count?

Court’s Findings and Reasoning

1. Scope of the Food (Labelling and Advertising) Regulations:
   • The Court held that the Food (Labelling and Advertising) Regulations of 2005 are directed at sellers rather than manufacturers. The regulation specifies that food items should not be sold, exposed for sale, or transported without appropriate labeling, which primarily implicates retailers and not manufacturers.
   • According to the Court, the responsibility for labeling is generally assigned to the party handling the product at the point of sale. The regulation is interpreted as only applying to those who offer the food for sale to end consumers, indicating no liability for manufacturers if the product is mishandled or mislabeled by third parties.
2. Ambiguity in Charges:
   • Since the Supreme Court found that the manufacturer is not liable under the regulation, it did not address the second question on the ambiguity of combining manufacturing and distribution in one charge. The ruling rendered this aspect moot.

Statutory Interpretation

The Supreme Court underscored that, under Sri Lanka’s Food Act, liability for non-compliance is generally limited to the entity in control of the product at the point of sale. This framework recognizes that various stakeholders in the food industry (manufacturers, distributors, and retailers) each hold different responsibilities. Once a manufacturer loses control over the product, liability does not extend beyond reasonable control points.

Comparative Analysis

The Court referenced practices from the U.S., India, and Canada, where regulatory frameworks clearly define roles and responsibilities along the food supply chain. These countries employ checklists, guidelines, and prior hearings (like the U.S.’s Section 305 hearings) to determine accountability. Such frameworks help ensure that only the appropriate party is held liable, avoiding undue charges against manufacturers who have met their regulatory responsibilities up to the point of sale.

Conclusion and Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded that the Food (Labelling and Advertising) Regulations do not impose labeling liability on manufacturers. Consequently, the Court set aside Coca-Cola’s conviction and acquitted the company. The judgment emphasizes that, for effective regulation, public health authorities need adequate legal training to understand the statutory responsibilities of different actors in the food chain.

Implications

This ruling underscores the importance of clarifying the legal obligations of manufacturers versus retailers in food labeling laws. It highlights the need for capacity-building efforts to ensure public health officers can effectively enforce food safety regulations without overstepping legal boundaries. Additionally, it may prompt regulatory authorities to update or clarify food labeling laws to avoid ambiguity in future cases.

Recommendations

1. Regulatory Clarity: Amend the Food Act or issue new regulations that delineate responsibility for labeling at various points along the supply chain.
2. Training for Health Officers: Develop programs that provide legal training for public health officers, helping them accurately interpret and enforce food safety regulations.
3. Guidance for Manufacturers and Retailers: Introduce clearer labeling guidelines that delineate responsibilities across the manufacturing and retail sectors, minimizing potential for similar legal challenges.

This decision reinforces a structured approach to food safety compliance, balancing consumer protection with a practical understanding of the food industry’s operational framework.

Read Full Judgement