Student poisoning/SORI-AL: No confirmation from institutions, who is responsible for the damage to the business

2026-07-17 17:51:41, Aktualitet CNA

Student poisoning/SORI-AL: No confirmation from institutions, who is responsible

The SORI-AL company, through an official statement, announces that after completing all official verifications, it turns out that no institution has confirmed a conclusion that the poisoning of the Security Academy students is related to SORI-AL.

But the statement emphasizes that the damage to the company's reputation has been done and cannot be undone by a report or an administrative notice.

SORI-AL underlines that the QSUT has confirmed that no patient has been diagnosed with food poisoning and that there is no medical report linking the patients' condition to the consumption of food cooked by SORI-AL.

The company adds that the ISUV test was negative for food samples taken during the official control, a result also confirmed by the analyses of the accredited private laboratory. The State Health Inspectorate did not find any legal violations, the Institute of Public Health confirmed that it had not conducted laboratory analyses of the food, while the National Food Authority closed the procedure without finding any violations and allowed the normal continuation of the company's activity. Even the clinical data show a completely different picture from what was created in public opinion.

The SORI-AL company raises concerns, emphasizing that protecting a business's reputation cannot be treated as a secondary issue, especially when public perception is created before official documents speak.

In conclusion, the reaction raises the question of who bears responsibility when public institutions damage the reputation of a business.

"In a state of law, the truth must have the same public resonance as accusations," the public statement emphasizes.

SORI-AL DECLARATION

Two months of accusations. A completely different official conclusion… For more than two months, public opinion was bombarded with the news that “SORI-AL” had caused massive food poisoning. Today, after the completion of all official verifications, it turns out that no institution has confirmed such a conclusion.

However, the damage to the company's reputation has been done and cannot be undone by a report or an administrative notice. Throughout this period, "SORI-AL" cooperated without reservation with every state institution, opened its premises for every inspection and re-inspection, made available every requested document and awaited the completion of the verifications without conducting a trial in the media and without prejudging the work of the authorities.

Official documents speak clearly. The QSUT confirms that no patient has been diagnosed with food poisoning and that there is no medical report linking the patients' condition to the consumption of food cooked by SORI-AL.

The ISUV resulted negative for the food samples taken during the official control, a result also confirmed by the analyses of the accredited private laboratory. The State Health Inspectorate did not find any legal violations, the Institute of Public Health confirmed that it had not conducted laboratory analyses of the food, while the National Food Authority closed the procedure without finding any violations and allowed the normal continuation of the company's activity. Even the clinical data show a completely different picture from what was created in public opinion.

In the first episode, out of 45 people presented to the QSUT, 43 were discharged within 1 to 4 hours, while only 2 stayed longer for monitoring. In the second episode, out of 67 people, 66 were discharged within 30 minutes to a few hours, while only one person was hospitalized for several days. These are official medical facts, not interpretations.

Precisely for this reason, protecting a business's reputation cannot be treated as a secondary issue, especially when public perception has been created before official documents have spoken.

In recent days, state institutions have rightly reacted to the damage to the reputation of businesses through false comments and ratings on social networks, emphasizing that protecting business is a public interest.

We fully support this standard. But an equally important question arises: when the reputation of a business is damaged by communications or actions of public institutions themselves, which are ultimately not supported by official documents of their procedures, who is responsible for the damage caused? In a state of law, the truth should have the same public resonance as the accusation… “SORI-AL” sh.pk/ CNA Company