"Food Safety Law"

Social forces have played an invaluable role in promoting the government to strengthen food safety supervision and promote the production of good corporate practices.

Food safety maintains people's livelihood. In recent years, food safety incidents have occurred frequently, which has made it even more of a concern for the Chinese public. The “Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised Draft for Ratification)” publicly solicited opinions from the State Council a few days ago (hereinafter referred to as “draft review”) has delivered an inspiring message to the society that the country will solve food safety by strengthening the building of the legal system. problem. The draft submitted for review has a certain improvement over the past legislation in the implementation of the reform of the regulatory system and the transformation of government functions, as well as innovative regulatory mechanisms. However, the author also found out that the provisions on food safety information will probably hinder the public's detection and supervision of food safety issues and hinder the disclosure and transparency of information.

For example, Article 106 stipulates that “any unit or individual that publishes food safety information that may have a major impact on the society or the food industry shall be verified in advance with the food production and operation enterprises, industry associations, scientific research institutions, and food safety supervision and management departments”. It can be imagined that once this clause comes into effect, the government and food production companies will monopolize first-hand information on food safety issues and control the release of food safety information.

The openness and transparency of food safety information is the key to social supervision. In recent years, major and vicious food safety incidents exposed by the media, third-party agencies, and individuals (netizens) have first been exposed, such as plasticizers, waste oil, melamine milk powder, and rat meat. The social forces are promoting the government to strengthen food safety. Supervision plays an inestimable role in promoting good production practices. If the new food safety law moves the threshold of “verification” to the people before the masses report, the department’s approval procedures are complicated, companies cannot recognize the facts, and the experts cannot quantify the risks. This will inevitably lead to major food safety incidents not being exposed for the first time. In front of the public. However, the exchange of food safety risks focuses on timeliness. When uncertain food safety risks are discovered, consumers have the right to be informed at the first time and risk assessments can follow.

In addition, the review draft focuses on the responsibility of individuals and organizations to release information, but it dilutes the obligations of the verifier, such as what needs to be verified, how long it takes to do it, and how to respond to individuals and organizations that verify the application. The strengthening of the rights of departments and enterprises is not conducive to the elimination of consumer concerns about food safety, leading to the loss of government credibility, and complicated administrative procedures will also have a protective effect on enterprises. This forced us to infer that the appearance of Article 106 of the review draft was related to the years of government public relations and lobbying by the food industry, trying to shield public opinion from its supervision.

In contrast, the food safety laws of some developed countries and the provisions of international organizations do not set the threshold for public voices on food safety risks or weaken the role of consumers in food safety. Both the EU and U.S. food safety basic laws are based on the principle of prudence and transparency in order to require food safety regulatory authorities to disclose food safety information or risks in a timely manner. They do not set obligations for individuals or organizations to publish information. Take the Japanese Food Safety Act as an example. Its basic principles specifically stipulate that consumers need to actively enhance their understanding of food safety knowledge and information, and actively express opinions on government food safety policies to ensure food safety. The initiative “Consumer Organization Guide to Promote National Food Safety Systems” jointly issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) and FAO (FAO) mentioned that communicating risks to the public and the food industry in emergencies is increasingly important in the national food safety system. In its component parts, consumers have the right to be informed, informed, and fully informed of food safety related incidents through effective and practical means of communication. Food safety risk communication Public and food industry consumers must be a two-way process to ensure that the government protects and fully takes into account consumer concerns and rights to food safety.

It can be seen that the “pre-verification” is inconsistent with the principle of information disclosure, legal rights and obligations, and international advocacy principles for food safety governance. Therefore, the first paragraph of Article 106 should be deleted, retaining only “any unit or individual may not create, Spread false food safety information." In fact, "units and individuals must not make up or disseminate false information", it already contains the obligation of units and individuals to issue information, that is, to ensure "objectivity and truthfulness." This is the basic principle that all information dissemination needs to comply with. For acts of publishing false, fabricated, or false information, the existing rules of civil law and tort law have provided the legal basis for the prosecution of food production and business operators and related departments. It is superfluous to impose obligations on the units and individuals in the food safety law. .