It is common practice for beer companies to withhold some information regarding the types of cereals used. They also conceal the unmalted cereals used; only to mention that your favorite beer contains unmalted cereal. Well, that trend has been formally ended by a Federal Court in Goias. The ruling has directed all beer manufacturers to not only indicate the presence of unmalted cereals but most importantly, to specify which unmalted cereals have been used. The information can be accessed on FagasPress, a blog site that Bruno Fagali uses to keep the corporate sector and other interested readers updated regarding the latest developments that touch on corporate ethics.
FagasPress, the blog that Bruno Fagali uses to update readers on ethical developments in the corporate sector, reports that the ruling on beer labels is not exactly new. Sometime back in 2016, the Public prosecutor filed an urgent case with the federal courts seeking to have beer companies to supply the names of unmalted cereals used in their beer by printing them on the beer labels. The case was dealt a temporary blow because the courts temporarily deferred it. The judges found no urgency to compel the beer companies to do what the prosecutor requested. The prosecutor had asked that the beer companies be compelled to comply within 60 days. However, the ruling in the preliminary injunction request was only dealing with the time frames, the substantive case came to the full hearing, and now the verdict is out. It was reported that earlier on before the Office of the Public Prosecutor took the step, the issue had been slated for an agreement between the parties. The beer companies are said to have taken a hard stand, citing patent issues.
The Ruling Favors the Bruno Fagali Campaigns
The ruling further adds tinder in the ethics compliance fire that Bruno Fagali started. In his sentence, Judge Juliano Taveira Bernades humorously summarized the ruling by stating that although the ruling ran for over 38 sheets, there was no stuffing and that he would not bore the parties with reading all the details. He pointed out that the case was determined by considering four-pointers. The determiners were: whether the CDC demands that such information is provided, whether the Law 8.98 of 1998 also calls for the same, whether Decree 6.871 of 2009 directs as such and whether implementing such a requirement would be realistic and practicable. In summary, according to Bruno Fagali, through FagasPress, the beer companies had been contravening the law and infringing on consumer right to information.