₦airaland Forum

SpatialKing:
I totally support people calling out products
People should call out products by saying is too salty, sugary, spoiled or not well cooked etc..

But coming out boldly to say the product is killing people without any evidence to back your claim... Haba

Orinechi:
But she doesn't have a right to defame a brand. Try what she did to any brand and get urself in jail .

sirchim:
himself know say nothing good dey inside am.

sirchim:
Can anything good come out of madRIG guy?

Goodnewsforlife:
op sugar coated it

Go n check all she posted on Facebook n u will see it’s beyond, a person doing an harmless review will not dare anyone to take her to court

She did it like she was paid by competitors to demarket d product

Goodnewsforlife:
nawah for u igbos ooo

She demarket d product but u didn’t see that but I know if people start avoiding erisco products now n it fold up

U igbos will blame tinubu n not your sister

Paulpaulpaul:
Then who will pay the 5billion fan?

gidgiddy:
The boycott is as a result of the undue harrasment of the woman by the security agents at the behest of Erisco

tonicyril:
What is happening here sef?

Buccalcavity2:
Hmm. You have a point. It's just a disturbing trend. In the west, they probably have more brutal reviews than I see in Nigeria. And in few cases companies take it up while in majority of cases companies quickly douse the situation...You read the subsequent cases in news.... BUT i have never seen let's boycott that product/company...

naijapips04:
Yes. It is pure Ponzi.

Buccalcavity2:
Of course Chioma has the right to boycott. I'm worried about who (are the "Nigerians" calling on Nigerians to boycott a product. because Chioma is their social media comrade? I don't see the basis. It seems like social media cancellation strategy which aligns with ERISCOs complaints.
I'm just judging dispassionately
If I have issues with fellow citizen,regardless of my status, why can't I seek resolution in a civil way? why should social media be the judge?

Buccalcavity2:
What I don't get is the boycott clamour. It kinda gives credence to chiomas motive to destroy ERISCO business.
You 'reviewed' a product, company feels it is malicious, went the civil way to complain. You came back from law enforcement officers and then clamour for boycott of the product? It's beginning to seem like arrogance and blackmail by social media to me.
The case is in court, so why are you scared if you are right! Why boycott?

madridguy:
Amazing product.

0jgti7gko08yhfe:
No mind the BADT man

madridguy:
Scroll up and see my attachment and tell us amount you award such person if you're the owner of Erisco Foods.

madridguy:
If you like go and open 100 moniker over this case, you and your Chioma will face the court for spoiling someone else business.

madridguy:

● Eric, founder of Erisco Foods, acknowledges the presence of sugar in the tomato mix Chioma reviewed, suggesting, "You can add water and use it to eat bread." He draws a comparison between the tin tomato mix and "butter" and "jam." Given that jam often contains high levels of sugar, it's understandable why Chioma voiced her concern.

● This comparison has prompted some analysts to raise questions regarding false advertising and lack of information. Notably, the amount of sugar added is unspecified, and there's no nutritional breakdown available. Additionally, the use of a personified image of a tomato chef preparing a meal with the tomato mix jam raises further concerns. Moreover, critics argue that the '100% natural' label on Erisco canned tomatoes, tomato mix, and tomato pastes is vague and misleading.

● Chioma faces accusations of violating the Cyber Crimes Act 2015 for stating that the product is killing people. However, some analysts have disputed this claim, suggesting it's an assumption rather than a fact. They point out that Chioma used "ki***ing," an 8-character word, while "killing" is only 7 characters long. Therefore, according to these analysts, it's inappropriate to impose an assumption on a vague word, especially in a case involving a criminal offense that requires evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

● Nevertheless, others argue that even if "killing" was intended, it still doesn't justify the intimidation. They contend that the word strongly emphasizes concerns about the potential negative health effects of consuming such a sweet product. Additionally, section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015, which Eric and the police are relying on, is controversial, as it has been declared null and void by the ECOWAS court. Ribadu has also pledged that the law will be reviewed. However, while Eric and the police are entitled to test it in Nigerian courts, they should refrain from intimidating and bullying the pregnant mother and allow the court to perform its duty.

● The Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has declared Chioma didn't violate any known extant law.

osuofia2:
Obidients are terrible. If Erisco food folds alot of jobs fold because of jobless olosho seeking attention

Watianoengineer:
Those blaming APC for the woes of the country should direct their anger towards Peter Obi. That man is the reason why everyone is suffering currently. Nigerians were fed up with Buhari's ineptitude coupled with the naira scarcity and were ready to sack APC from leadership. Peter Obi made sure APC remained by splitting the votes he and Atiku should have jointly gotten from nigerians hereby making Tinubu to emerge as President. Peter Obi is the reason why many families are going to bed hungry. That Obidient movement was started to ensure APC remained in power. Governor Soludo warned but was insulted by Obidients. See where we are today

CannibalTorment:
Chioma thinks she can say anything and go scot free

seunmsg:
Chioma will go to jail and nothing will happen.

Peterobi90:
I stand with Erisco 100%... its not an obidient or APC thing..

You can't say a product one has grown and built for over 40years kills people without proof, .[/b]

Chioma faces accusations of violating the Cyber Crimes Act 2015 for stating that the product is killing people. However, some analysts have disputed this claim, suggesting it's an assumption rather than a fact. They point out that Chioma used "ki***ing," an 8-character word, while "killing" is only 7 characters long. Therefore, according to these analysts, it's inappropriate to impose an assumption on a vague word, especially in a case involving a criminal offense that requires evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

● Nevertheless, others argue that even if "killing" was intended, it still doesn't justify the intimidation. They contend that the word strongly emphasizes concerns about the potential negative health effects of consuming such a sweet product. Additionally, section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015, which Eric and the police are relying on, is controversial, as it has been declared null and void by the ECOWAS court. Ribadu has also pledged that the law will be reviewed. However, while Eric and the police are entitled to test it in Nigerian courts, they should refrain from intimidating and bullying the pregnant mother and allow the court to perform its duty.

● The Federal Competition & Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has declared Chioma didn't violate any known extant law.