��һ�ǿ�����

A snack of crackling turned one man’s birthday into a costly blowout after he chomped down on the crispy pork rind and broke his tooth.

The man claimed the meat treat was not “fit for purpose” and the company which made it should pay him $2000 to cover his dental bill.

But the company disagreed, saying there was no evidence its product had damaged the man’s tooth.

The crackling clash was taken to the Disputes Tribunal, which heard the matter last month.

In the tribunal’s recently released decision, which redacted the name of the man and the company, it stated the issues for determination were whether the pork crackling was of acceptable quality and, if not, was the $2000 remedy sought by the man reasonable.

According to the decision, the man was snacking on crackling on his birthday when he bit down on a “rock-hard object”, which broke his left lower molar.

The man believed his teeth had been in “good nick” and he was unsure if it was crackling or some “other hard foreign body” within the pork that caused the damage.

He told the tribunal the crackling was not fit for snacking as claimed on the packaging.

“He would not have bought something he knew would damage his teeth,” tribunal referee Carolyn Murphy said in her decision, referring to the man’s comments.

The company’s technical manager told the tribunal there was no evidence of any foreign body or product failure that could have caused the damage to the man’s tooth.

He said pork crackling was crunchy and could be hard, or have hard bits, and there was no evidence as to whether the man’s tooth was already weak or damaged.

The manager also stated the company had requested further information about the “rock-hard object” but had not received anything.

Murphy agreed there was no evidence of “a foreign body” being in the crackling and said, therefore, the question was whether the reasonable consumer expected pork crackling to have “rock” hard bits in it that were capable of breaking a tooth.

“Crackling, by its definition, is at least going to be crunchy and crispy. Many fruits, such as apples, could be described as crunchy and crispy,” Murphy wrote in her decision.

“Even without a specific hard piece of crackling, I find any food items that might be described as crunchy and crispy have the capability of breaking a tooth.

“I also find the reasonable consumer might well expect there to be hard bits in pork crackling.”

Murphy rejected the man’s submission that the pork crackling was not fit for purpose.

She said that would mean many food items, including toffees, hard lollies, and any fruits with pips, were also not fit for purpose.

“I find this likely goes well beyond what Parliament intended the meaning of fit for purpose for food items,” she said.

“For these reasons, I find the allegation that pork crackling, which may include hard bits, is not fit for purpose, is not proved, and I must dismiss the claim.”

The decision stated that after the hearing, the man filed a claim with ACC.

It said the claim was not accepted by ACC because the definition of personal injury excluded injuries caused by the natural use of teeth, for example, chewing or biting.

Tara Shaskey joined ��һ�ǿ����� in 2022 and is currently an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.