Pura Vida Case

FACULTAD DE NEGOCIOS
CARRERA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN Y NEGOCIOS INTERNACIONALES
"PURA VIDA" CASE
MEMBERS:
Cruz Calderón, Almendra
Rosales Catillo, Jorge
Almeida Mercado, Matias
Course:
International Management
Teacher:
Deisy Saldaña Rodríguez
TRUJILLO – PERÚ
2020
Contenido
SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
HISTORY........................................................................................................................4
COMPOSITION..............................................................................................................5
SITUATION.........................................................................................................................6
DISPUTE OVER ITS COMMERCIALIZATION....................................................................6
How did the controversy begin?..................................................................................6
The position of the Gloria Group.................................................................................7
Controversy in Peru......................................................................................................8
ACTIONS............................................................................................................................9
THE ACTING OF GLORIA S.A..........................................................................................9
The Performance of the DIGESA.................................................................................10
The performance of INDECOPI....................................................................................11
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................12
Bibliografía.......................................................................................................................14
Cruz Calderón, Almendra Ximena; Rosales Catillo, Jorge; Almeida Mercado, Matias pág. 2
SUMMARY
On June 2, 2017, various media and social networks -in general- reported that the company
Gloria S.A. It had been prevented from marketing the product PURA VIDA NUTRIMAX ("Pura
Vida") in the Republic of Panama, because its labeling indicated that it was "evaporated milk"
when in fact it was a "dairy product"; and that, therefore, the company had cheated
consumers, violating the health of children who had consumed that product. This generated
that various authorities in our country - and also consumers - demand immediate explanations
and sanctions from those responsible. In the present work we will analyze the performance of
some of the State entities that were involved in some way or another in the marketing of the
“Pura Vida” product with the image of a cow on its label and under the name “partially
skimmed evaporated milk with soy milk, maltodextrin, vegetable fat, minerals (iron and zinc)
and enriched with vitamins (A and D) - “Pura Vida” – Nutrimax”
INTRODUCTION
It is the name of the low-cost beverage brand of the Gloria Group in Peru.
The Gloria Group is a conglomerate with activities in the areas of food, cement, agribusiness
and stationery, among other branches.
It has assets in Peru, where it comes from, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Puerto Rico.
He was born in 1941 as a milk trading company. Being promoted as evaporated milk, in fact a
modified dairy product, it became popular as one of the most consumed Peruvian brands in
2017. However, complaints between consumers and organizations about its denomination got
the product to stop marketing for a period not definite.
HISTORY
The “Pura Vida” brand has been on the market since 2001 when its sanitary registration was
approved by the General Directorate of Environmental Health and Food Safety; and, since that
time, the product had already been marketed with sanitary records that described the product
with the word milk and with the image of cow (s) on the label.
In an interview for RPP, the president of the Association of Dairy Industries (Adil), Rolando
Piskulic, said the drink was marketed to low-income residents because of the mixture with
vegetable fats.
According to the newspaper La República in 2005 the canned jar was sold between S /. 1.60
and S /. 1.70 Between July and November 2014, the General Directorate of Environmental
Health (DIGESA) named the drink as "milk". His consideration managed to be exported to
Panama, since 2014.
In 2017, the consulting firm Kantar Worldpanel named Pura Vida as the sixth most consumed
brand in Peru. Finally, in this year, as a result of the suspension of the Sanitary Registry of the
product "Pura Vida" in the Central American country of Panama, and the media impact that
was generated in our country and the pressure exerted by various authorities of the political
and institutional sphere, DIGESA decided to go back and immediately proceeded to suspend
the Sanitary Registry in Peru, generating a new modification in the labeling and labeling.
COMPOSITION
For the authorities in Panama, they describe that they contain "soy lecithin, stabilizers,
vitamins A, C and D, minerals (iron and zinc), a minimum portion of partially skim milk, soy milk
and milk essence".
For Grupo Gloria, in a report, he said that Pura Vida contains 60% powdered milk and 40% is
remaining, highlighting soy milk. According to the Association of Dairy Industries, which is part
Gloria, part of the contribution of soybeans comes from GM crops. Other components are
carrageenan, maltodextrin and hydrogenated vegetable oils.
SITUATION
DISPUTE OVER ITS COMMERCIALIZATION
In 2010, Laive, Gloria's competing brand, denounced the Pura Vida brand for deceptive
advertising; the case was dismissed. In 2012 a consumer sued the Gloria Group for
misinformation, as a result the company paid a fine valued at S /. 77 000. In the same year, the
Association of Dairy Cattle Producers of Peru denounced Gloria for including a cow in the
package to induce that it is made naturally, but was ignored.
On June 2, 2017, the Panamanian Food Safety Authority verified that Pura Vida contains a
smaller amount of cow's milk and "has other elements in its preparation, so it cannot be
promoted as evaporated milk." As a result, banned import, at the request of the National
Association of Livestock Producers of Panama, "when in fact it is a flavoring and coloring drink
that pretends to be milk."
In the same month, the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) and the
Ombudsman Walter Gutierrez insisted that Gloria violates the Consumer Protection Code
when promoting the product. On June 7, Indecopi ordered to ban its commercialization and
confiscated Gloria's headquarters in Huachipa. The next day, a group of prosecutors inspected
markets despite not being informed in advance. Losses reach 15 million soles.
Internationally, the National Service of Agricultural Health and Food Safety of Bolivia
commissioned a laboratory for analysis. Until then, your sale is suspended.
With the controversy over dairy products, the media criticized Pura Vida and the like for its low
nutritional value compared to fresh and whole milk. Crisólogo Cáceres, president of ASPEC,
mentioned that carrageenan is detrimental to health.Following irregularities on the healthy
eating law, changes in policy were made. Commissions for the control of food products were
also established.
NEW: Source: BBC Mundo
How did the controversy begin?

The decision of the Panamanian government to temporarily suspend the commercialization of
the Peruvian product came after the National Association of Livestock Producers of that
country denounced that Pura Vida "simulates being milk," according to Panamanian media.
The entity denounced before governmental instances of that country that that imported
product was sold as evaporated milk "when in fact it is a flavoring and coloring drink".
In this regard, Marco Pino, advisor to the top office of the Panamanian Food Safety Authority
(AUPSA), told BBC Mundo that the product of the Gloria Group does not agree with the rules
and regulations of labeling and designation of that country.
"The product must have an appropriate denomination and they use the term 'dairy food'. The
use of the term 'dairy' implies that it has to meet requirements that it does not meet," said the
Panamanian government official.
Marco Pino said that Pura Vida cannot be considered "technically" as milk or as a dairy product
because it includes other elements in its composition and that a more appropriate description
is that of compound food.
"It cannot be called (milk) in a strict sense, applying the rules of labeling, such as the rules of
the use of terms. There are mixtures of milk with vegetable fat and should be named as such,"
said Pino.
The position of the Gloria Group

The Gloria Group announced that it will adjust the Pura Vida label according to the
observations made by the Panamanian authorities, however, it ensures that the product in
question is milk.
"Under Panamanian regulation, if the product is not 100% milk, they ask that we change
certain aspects of the label. For example, that we remove the cow that appears on the label,"
Marco Rosado, corporate director of Grupo Gloria told BBC Mundo.
How the combative Movement of the Landless became the largest producer of organic rice in
Latin America
"We categorically say that (Pura Vida) is milk," he added in time to point out that the product
in question has not been removed from the Panamanian market.
Gloria said that the adjustment in the label to be made in the next two months will be only for
the Panamanian market, because in other countries such as Peru the product conforms to the
regulations.
The company does not plan to make any other changes in the development of Pura Vida.
"The Panamanian government is not questioning the nutrition of Pura Vida, it is questioning
the label," Rosado concluded.
For its part, AUPSA pondered the good attitude of the Gloria Group to comply with
Panamanian regulations.
In Panama it represents 7% of the market, which translates between 20 and 25 containers

exported per month.
Controversy in Peru
The case raised in Panama generated different reactions in Peru.
The Consumer Defense Commission of the Peruvian Congress announced on Monday that it
will convene the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and the Protection of
Intellectual Property of Peru and invite the Gloria Group to present a report on the Pura Vida
case.
Indecopi held an emergency meeting on Monday morning with other regulatory entities in
Peru that are part of the National Consumer Protection Council.
Through a statement, Indecopi informed BBC Mundo that it was determined to carry out
sanitary registration, labeling and advertising investigations "which will cover transversely not
only the products in question; but in general, the products of the milk and milk products
market, whose results will be known soon. "
The government authority, according to a report from the newspaper El Comercio de Perú,
added that "the promotion made of that product is misleading for consumers, because Pura
Vida is not cow's milk."
Meanwhile, the Ombudsman of that country, Walter Gutierrez, asked the corresponding
authorities "to adopt the necessary measures for the immediate suspension of the
commercialization of said products", in reference to Pura Vida.
However, for the Association of Dairy Industries of Peru, the product of the Gloria Group does
comply with the labeling regulations of that country and does not deceive the population.
"The label exposes the components of the product, so there is no concealment of its
components before the consumer or the authorities," said the business entity.
Beyond the different positions, the Pura Vida case revived the debate regarding the
composition and purity of the products consumed daily in the region.
And the controversy is reaching more and more actors, including one of the historical leaders
of the dairy sector in Peru.
ACTIONS
THE ACTING OF GLORIA S.A.
From the review of the information to which we have had access , it can be seen that the
performance of Gloria S.A. against the complaints against him, it was to indicate that he had all
the respective authorizations of the authorities (DIGESA and INDECOPI) to market the product
“Pura Vida” with the image of a cow on its label
Then, a transcript of the statement by the executive of Gloria S.A. in the personal interview
held with it:
“I am surprised by the discretion with which both INDECOPI and DIGESA order the
precautionary measure huh… INDECOPI had granted the permit… for the use of the cow… I had
INDECOPI permission to market it huh… what It happens ... I do not know if you saw the
statement of Robert Priday in Congress and the pressure exerted to stop marketing the
product ... According to the Food Code can be called milk to certain things ... milk is the
secretion of mammary glands of an animal, any treatment given to milk causes it to become a
dairy product ... then evaporated milk falls into what is called a dairy product, for that side of
the denomination there would be no problem, for example you have the Gloria milk in blue
can that is 100% cow's milk but that goes through a treatment and when it goes through a
treatment it is already a dairy product called evapo milk rada, that is to say, it is a joint
denomination “milk” and “evaporated”, what happened was that in the market there are also
products to which plant components are added and currently companies use plant
components for some of their products, those Products according to the Codex cannot be
called evaporated milk ... so to order the market what was done in Peru through the DIGESA ...
these products were referred to as "Evaporated Milk with ...", so there was nothing wrong
with the denomination either.
The cow arises because we received a notification from Panama at the end of May where 3
items of the product were questioned, the first was to change the name because it contains
soy milk and in Panama the name has changed and there is no The concept of vegetable milk is
"drink" so they say change the label that says "soy milk" to "soy drink" because the milk is
cow's milk; the second is that the one on the back of the can had an energy comparison on the
properties of the product with vegetables, chickens, etc. … They told us to remove that from
the label because it is a comparison that can confuse the consumer to replace meals and; the
third that since it is not a product that is 100% milk but 80% milk, the cow must be removed
because it can lead to people thinking that it is 100% cow's milk so they never told us to stop
marketing, all they said was you can not import more products that have these characteristics,
they told us change the label and from there you can continue importing, sell what you have
but the next import has to come with the changes, that was
It is worrisome to see the little autonomy that INDECOPI and DIGESA have in the face of media
and political pressure, with what security can be invested in the country if the institutionality is
not respected ... In the industrialized market we - understand Gloria - attach 80% of the milk ,
Laive and Nestlé products are mostly made with powdered milk, unfortunately in Peru there is
no milk production to cover all the demand, Peru is not a country like Argentina or New
Zealand where you can put cattle to graze ... it is very complicated so what is done is to import
the milk powder to be able to compensate for the quality of the milk ... the fresh milk made
powder, it is not the milk powder of the supermarket ... what happens is a promise that Fuerza
Popular He made the farmers, not the farmers, a small group that are not even farmers but
couplers who are five specific people who have contributed to the campaign and today, who
have a majority in Congress, they have to keep their promise ...
We see then that the official position of Gloria S.A. It was that the company had all the permits
of the competent authorities to market the product with these characteristics and, therefore,
would not have incurred any fault. In this regard, we have been able to determine that, in
effect, Gloria S.A. if it had the corresponding authorizations of the administrative authorities
(DIGESA and INDECOPI) to market the product “Pura Vida” with the denomination “Evaporated
milk with…” and with the label that contained the image of a cow. Proof of this is that DIGESA
approved the modification of the Sanitary Registry of “Pura Vida” in 2015 and, for its part, that
INDECOPI also approved the label with the aforementioned characteristics.
The Performance of the DIGESA

By virtue of the information reviewed in this case we have noticed that the action of the
General Directorate of Environmental Health and Food Safety - DIGESA was to publicly
acknowledge that it had made a “mistake” in granting Gloria S.A. Sanitary Registry No.
A3860814N / NAGOSA that allowed the product to be referred to as “Evaporated milk partially
skimmed with soy milk, maltodextrin, vegetable fat, minerals (iron and zinc) and enriched with
vitamins (Ay D) -“ PURA VIDA ”- NUTRIMAX ", DIGESA not only publicly admitted that it had
made a mistake in authorizing that Gloria S.A. use the aforementioned denomination, but
indicated that it would initiate the process of disengagement and criminal legal proceedings
against the workers responsible for having attempted against the health of consumers. (The
Republic, 2017)
The performance of INDECOPI

Known “The Pura Vida Case” through the media, INDECOPI pronounces, noting that it had
convened the competent authorities to make an analysis of the case and that it would be
investigated if there was a violation to the rules of advertising and product labeling.
Subsequently, on June 7, 2017, INDECOPI issues a statement informing that it had issued a
precautionary measure ordering that the marketing of the “Pura Vida” product in Peru be
suspended and that the product be collected from all points of sale where This one had been
distributed. This measure was lifted on June 14, 2017 through a new resolution of said entity.
We wanted to have access to the aforementioned resolutions, however, this has not been
possible because the procedure is still pending. INDECOPI has sanctioned the company Gloria
S.A, in the Consumer Protection Commission No. 2 where it considers that the company has
violated the rights of consumers to suitability and information; (El Comercio, 2017) and in the
Consumer Protection Commission No. 3 where it also considers that the company has violated
the rights of consumers to information and suitability. (América TV, 2017)
To date there is not yet a pronouncement from the Commission for the Control of Unfair
Competition who can rule on acts of unfair competition that Gloria S.A. would have incurred.
in the marketing of the product "Pura Vida". Consequently, we have been able to determine
that INDECOPI did comply with the approval of the “Pura Vida” product label in accordance
with its regulations, and according to the 118 standards reviewed, INDECOPI requests the
administrator to indicate the sign he intends to register, which was presented by Gloria SA
containing the denomination in the terms that DIGESA authorized in the approval of its
sanitary registry. We conclude that INDECOPI approved the label with the image of the cow,
considering that the name of the product "Pura Vida" was "Milk evaporated with ..." because
Gloria S.A. declared it so. in the sign he presented for registration, understanding that the
denomination contained therein, had already been previously approved by the competent
specialist authority. Indeed, as analyzed in the present case, INDECOPI only officially
pronounced after which DIGESA admitted in the media that it had made a mistake in approving
the denomination "Milk evaporated with ..."; and it was, by virtue of that, that INDECOPI
issued the precautionary measure ordering the withdrawal of the product from the market.
We consider, however, that INDECOPI's decision to withdraw the product from the market was
an excess, since the product was not harmful to health; This also generated widespread
concern and confusion among consumers who believed that their children had been ingesting
a product harmful to health, affecting their development.
CONCLUSIONS.
In conclusion, foodstuffs for mass consumption have an impact on public health, so

milk is an almost essential food in the family basket whose composition is analyzed
before being placed on the market; so, to the registration request health, companies
attach the results of the corresponding analyzes issued by authorized laboratories.
However, DIGESA apparently decided to omit that there was a need for congruence
between the result of the analysis and the denomination
to be granted for the sanitary registration, since it authorized to denominate as milk
products that they are not.
We therefore consider that the legal good protected from administrative immediacy
does not It could be above the legal good protected from public health. How could the
DIGESA validate if the result of the analysis is consistent with those indicated in the
labeling and tagging if you don't do a thorough review of it? We believe that approval
procedures for health records should not be automatic and that the audit must be
prior to distribution and sale of the products in the market.
On the other hand, it has been determined that INDECOPI is competent to supervise
that the labels contain the information that corresponds to the nature of the product
that is being put on the market, not so that the product itself is what it indicates in the
denomination, as this is the responsibility of the DIGESA.
In the present case, DIGESA automatically approved the denomination of “Milk

partially skimmed evaporated with soy milk, maltodextrin, vegetable fat, minerals (iron
and zinc) and enriched with vitamins (A and D) - "PURA VIDA" - NUTRIMAX ”and only
when said entity indicated that said approval was the product of an error, INDECOPI
decided to pronounce on the matter sanctioning the company Gloria S.A.
In addition, the ethics of health control entities in the country must be improved to
contribute to the economy, it is important to reflect that what happened in this case
may to discourage companies from making investments in our country, because the
decisions have been taken as a result of media and political pressure; and without
consider the errors in which each of the State entities involved have incurred So, Gloria
S.A. was damaged his image and income, without even the date there has been a clear
explanation of what really happened in this case, not even a fault of the authorities
that granted the authorization to the sanitary registry and to the product label "For
Life".
Bibliografía
BBC Mundo. (06 de Junio de 2017). ¿Es o no es leche?: la controversia por Pura Vida,
el producto del gigante peruano de los lácteos Grupo Gloria cuya venta fue
suspendida en Panamá. El Grupo Gloria anunció que ajustará la etiqueta de
Pura Vida de acuerdo a las observaciones hechas por las autoridades
panameñas, sin embargo asegura que el producto en cuestión sí es leche.
Callirgos Ramírez, B. R., & Robles Maldonado, I. (2018). EL CASO PURA VIDA.
Lima.
RPP Noticias . (06 de Junio de 2017). Cómo empezó la polémica sobre la leche
envasada en el Perú. Las latas y envases tetrapack de Pura Vida ya no
presentarán la imagen de una vaca en sus etiquetas.

Pura Vida Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pura Vida Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTAD DE NEGOCIOS

CARRERA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN Y NEGOCIOS INTERNACIONALES

"PURA VIDA" CASE

and enriched with vitamins (A and D) - “Pura Vida” – Nutrimax”

NEW: Source: BBC Mundo

How did the controversy begin?

The position of the Gloria Group

In Panama it represents 7% of the market, which translates between 20 and 25 containers

The Performance of the DIGESA

The performance of INDECOPI

In conclusion, foodstuffs for mass consumption have an impact on public health, so

In the present case, DIGESA automatically approved the denomination of “Milk

You might also like