The Reason Veterinarian Park Jeong-seok Was Sued Over Feed Ingredient Analysis Video and the Legal Judgment

A veterinarian who pointed out that the ingredient content of pet food differs from the labeled values has been sued by a pet food company. Veterinarian Park Jeong-seok of the CarePet channel recently released a video revealing that, as a result of pet food quality evaluations, the crude protein and crude fat content of certain products fell below the labeled standards. In response, the pet food company in question has proceeded with a lawsuit citing defamation and violations of the Information and Communications Network Act, sparking controversy over the legal standing of a veterinarian's delivery of information for the public interest.

The Difference Between Defamation and Insult, 'Falsifiability' is Key

Through this case, veterinarian Park Jeong-seok and lawyer Jang Hyeon-o explained the legal difference between defamation and insult. According to lawyer Jang, while both acts share the commonality of lowering another person's reputation, the biggest difference lies in 'falsifiability.' Falsifiability refers to the quality of being able to prove whether the content in question is true or false.

For example, making subjective derogatory remarks about someone is considered 'insult' because the truthfulness cannot be proven. On the other hand, damaging a reputation by mentioning specific facts falls under the category of 'defamation' because the truthfulness can be examined. In this case, since Park did not use profanity and delivered his opinions based on the 'facts' of the pet food ingredient analysis results, it is being handled within the realm of defamation.

Is Disclosing Data for Public Interest Subject to Punishment?

The pet food company proceeded with the lawsuit, claiming that the content of the video was intended to spread false information or slander. However, lawyer Jang Hyeon-o judged that the video has a very strong 'public interest purpose.' According to precedents of the Supreme Court of Korea, even if some individual private interests (such as view count revenue or self-promotion) are included, public interest can be recognized if there is a connection to the public interest. Since cases solely for unconditional public interest are rare in reality, the Supreme Court applies such precedents to avoid the indiscriminate production of criminals.

In particular, the lawyer explained that this video has a strong character of delivering already announced data, and since a professional such as a veterinarian expressed an opinion for the health of pets, the illegality is very low. Furthermore, legally, 'expression of opinion' is not subject to punishment. While "ingredient content falls below the standard" is a realm of fact that can be confirmed through testing, "there may be concerns for health" constitutes an 'opinion' which is a subjective judgment of an expert, and this is directly linked to the freedom of expression, making it difficult to punish. Even if the facts were known incorrectly, if there is a justifiable reason, one may not be punished.

The Pet Food Company's Response Method and the Consumer's Right to Know

What is noteworthy in this case is the response method of the pet food company. When the test results came out, Park Jeong-seok did not announce them immediately but first contacted the company in question to give them an opportunity to submit their opinions. While other companies showed a willingness to improve by sharing test data, it is reported that the company in question showed an uncooperative attitude, such as responding unnecessarily or avoiding contact during the process of verifying their affiliation. According to the conversation in the video, the company showed an uncooperative attitude, such as repeatedly asking back "What is your affiliation?" when asked about their affiliation.

Park emphasized, "Consumers are smart, and since pets use pet food as their staple diet, ingredient content is a very important issue." In particular, he expressed concern that if the levels of calcium and phosphorus differ excessively, it could cause kidney stones or urinary tract stones in pets, stating that such analysis is socially necessary. Lawyer Jang also suggested that it could be an irrational response from the company's perspective and made it clear that the act of disclosing data for the consumers' right to know itself cannot be a crime.