§ 188 — Defence relating to advertising

188.—(1) In a prosecution of a person for an offence under section 184 or 185 in relation to publishing an advertisement about a food or a regulated food contact article, it is a defence for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person was acting in the course of a business of delivering, transmitting or broadcasting information or material (in whatever form or by whatever means) or making data available, and the nature of the business is such that persons undertaking it have no control over the nature or content of the information or material or data.(2) In a prosecution of a person for an offence under section 184 or 185 in relation to publishing an advertisement about a food or a regulated food contact article, it is also a defence for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that —(a)

the advertisement about the food or regulated food contact article was so published as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of any other matter not forming part of any promotion of the food or regulated food contact article in question; and

(b)

the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing that advertisement, in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the person receives for publishing that other matter.

(3) In addition, in any proceedings for an offence under section 184 or 185 in relation to publishing an advertisement about a food or a regulated food contact article, it is a further defence for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person —(a)

is a person whose business is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that the person received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business; and

(b)

has no financial interest in the food or regulated food contact article featured in the advertisement.

(4) However, subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply if the person charged for an offence under section 184 or 185 in relation to publishing an advertisement about a food or a regulated food contact article —(a)

had previously been informed in writing by the Agency or a Part 9 enforcement officer that publishing the advertisement or a similar advertisement in Singapore would constitute an offence under this Part;

(b)

ought reasonably to have known that the publishing of the advertisement in Singapore was an offence under this Part; or

(c)

is the proprietor of a food business or is otherwise engaged in the conduct of a food business for which the advertisements concerned were published.

(5) To avoid doubt, nothing in this Act limits the operation of section 26 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2010 in relation to network service providers.

—(1) In a prosecution of a person for an offence under section 184 or 185 in relation to publishing an advertisement about a food or a regulated food contact article, it is a defence for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person was acting in the course of a business of delivering, transmitting or broadcasting information or material (in whatever form or by whatever means) or making data available, and the nature of the business is such that persons undertaking it have no control over the nature or content of the information or material or data.

(2) In a prosecution of a person for an offence under section 184 or 185 in relation to publishing an advertisement about a food or a regulated food contact article, it is also a defence for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that —(a)

the advertisement about the food or regulated food contact article was so published as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of any other matter not forming part of any promotion of the food or regulated food contact article in question; and

(b)

the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing that advertisement, in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the person receives for publishing that other matter.

(3) In addition, in any proceedings for an offence under section 184 or 185 in relation to publishing an advertisement about a food or a regulated food contact article, it is a further defence for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person —(a)

is a person whose business is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that the person received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business; and

(b)

has no financial interest in the food or regulated food contact article featured in the advertisement.

(4) However, subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply if the person charged for an offence under section 184 or 185 in relation to publishing an advertisement about a food or a regulated food contact article —(a)

had previously been informed in writing by the Agency or a Part 9 enforcement officer that publishing the advertisement or a similar advertisement in Singapore would constitute an offence under this Part;

(b)

ought reasonably to have known that the publishing of the advertisement in Singapore was an offence under this Part; or

(c)

is the proprietor of a food business or is otherwise engaged in the conduct of a food business for which the advertisements concerned were published.

(5) To avoid doubt, nothing in this Act limits the operation of section 26 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2010 in relation to network service providers.