黄疸高是什么原因引起的Regulatory and policy control on food safety in China（中国食品安全监管和政策控制）Food safety incidents in China over the past two decades have not just threatened the health ofthe people in the country but have also caud international concern, as China is now a major foodexporter in the international market. One of the most infamous food safety scandals in China in recentyears, the ‘melamine milk’ incident, came to light in September 2008. This incident attracted so muchinternational attention that within about 2 months, the United Nations system launched a paper toprompt China to improve food safety. In this editorial, readers will be updated with the recent and lesswell-known changes to the major control mechanisms for food safety in mainland China. Majorweakness in this control regime will be discusd in order to rai awareness, as well as to pave theway for making recommendations for improvement.
FOOD SAFETY LAW AND MONITORING IN CHINA
The Chine Government has long been deploying the commonly ud regulatory controls onfood safety, such as tting minimum safety or process standards, mandatory information provision,and conditions of u requirements. In addition to this, since 2002, China, through the Ministry ofHealth, has monitored food safety by using a national monitoring network. With 1196 monitoring sites,the network covers all provinces, 73% of cities and 25% of counties in the country as of March 2012.
In the near future, a new China Food Net that monitors and tracks pathogens causing food-bornedias, as well as connecting food markets, supermarkets, hospitals and restaurants, will be t up8to fill the current lacuna in domestic food supply monitoring. In terms of legal development, about 1 year after the exposure of the melamine in milk incident, anew food safety law, the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereafter FSL) tookeffect on 1 June 2009. The FSL replaced the Food Hygiene Law (FHL) which was enacted in 1995,and has become the main food safety protection law in China. As oppod to the FHL, the FSLunambiguously ascribes the ultimate and coordinating responsibility for food safety management tothe Ministry of Health which is also responsible for food safety risk asssment, formulation of foodsafety standards, food safety information dismination, tting codes of practice for food testingorgani sations, and the investigation of major food safety incidents in the country (Article 4). Statedalso in Article 4, the duty to monitor food production, circulation and rvicing is to be taken up by theGeneral Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), the StateAdministration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), and the State Food and Drug Administration(SFDA). However, the FSL is silent on how this monitoring duty should be divided among the threeauthorities. Customarily, the AQ SIQ will be responsible for monitoring food production, the SAIC forfood circulation, and the SFDA for food rvicing and catering.
One shortcoming of the FHL was its narrow scope becau it covered mainly the industrialproduction of food. This is rectified to some extent in the FSL which mentions that quality and safetymanagement of farm produce should be implemented in accordance with relevant quality and safetylaws (Article 2).10 However, the FSL still does not fully implement the farm-to-fork principle becauno specific regulatory control on the production of raw materials of food, that is, farm produce, ismentioned.
A new aspect of the FSL is that it authoris consumers to ek compensation from producers ordistributors of the problematic food products for the financial loss incurred as a result, in addition to asum up to 10 times the price of the problematic food product (Article 96). While this is animprovement over the FHL, if the problematic food products concerned are lowpriced basic fooditems, such as table salt or rice, then deterrence may still be
inadequate.
灵堂挽联Furthermore, the FSL is also silent on whether the local governments concerned are required tocompensate the victims if the incident is caud by perfunctory government action. While it is notclear if financial compensation would be made by the local governments, the FSL does imposp
ecific penalties, such as dismissal and a 10-year embargo on food inspection duties, on derelictofficials (Article 93). However, the most vere form of punishment for the derelict public officerscan be found in the latest amendment to the Criminal Law.
A newly added ction of Article 408 of theCriminal Law stipulates that if food safety monitoring officials have caud rious or very riousdamages to societ y due to their misconduct or negligence, they will be ntenced to a maximum of 5or 10 years imprisonment, respectively. This shows the political will of the Central Chinegovernment to improve food safety governance of the country.
绿茶蛋糕OTHER FOOD SAFETY CHALLENGES
Other challenges for food safety in China are cloly related to the high cost of monitoring. InChina, thorough monitoring of food product safety and quality is particularly costly becau of thelarge number of small production points involved which are also more likely to practisubstandardoperation. Small-scale family workshops employing fewer than 10 employees were said to reprent70–77% of market share in China, not to mention the coexistence of many unregistered informalproducers. For instance, in Hunan, 80% of the small food workshops did not ha
ve the requiredproduction permits or business licens. Augmenting the available finances of municipal andsubmunicipal food safety monitoring agents is a direct solution to the above situation. However, thereality is just the opposite. The impecunious financial capacity of public agencies, especially ofprovinces in western China, has often been cited as a cau of regulatory and government failure. Thetight budget of many local food safety authorities in China has led to compromis in the types andquantities of food samples purchad for routine monitoring and testing. As a result, the less well-offlocal authorities tend to conduct testing on lower-priced food items, leaving the more up-market fooditems, de facto, test-exempted.
In line with the aim to reduce the cost of monitoring, in 2001, China launched an InspectionExemption Certification policy.A food producer could be given inspection exemption status if itenjoyed a large market share, pasd quality inspections three times in a row, and implemented foodsafety standards above national ones. The original intention of this policy was to encourage foodproducers to voluntarily rai production standards and perform well in formal inspections so that theywould enjoy a good reputation and a better market share. However, this policy was shown to be afailure by the melamine in milk incident becau the first brand of milk powder found to containmelamine was itlf an inspection-exempted brand, and this is probably why the InspectionE
坐车礼仪xemption Certification policy was repealed by the AQSIQ just 7 days after the exposure of themelamine in milk incident.
唐朝建立者On the whole, despite the progress made, the regulatory outcome of subquent years shows thatthere is still room for improvement. In 2011, procutions related to unsafe or substandard foodamounted to 367, an increa of 216% from 2010. Procution numbers for the first half of 2012 arecomparablewiththo in 2011.
CONCLUSION
So, how can food safety be improved in China? First, China should draw on international bestpractices to rationali and better define the division of work among the various authorities ascribedwith having food safety-related duties. In choosing a better form of governance structure, China canconsider using either the single agency model or the integrated model. Second, sufficient legalempowerment should be given to the Ministry of
Agriculture (MoA) to monitor the integrity of farmproduce by clearly stating this duty of the MoA in the FSL with the purpo of formally andthoroughly applying the farm-to-fork principle in the country. Third, financial compensation for thevictims of food safety incidents should be pegged according to t
he damage caud and not the value ofthe food products concerned. Fourth, as a deterrent to duty-dodging public agencies, derelict localgovernment officials should be subject to legal responsibility (as stipulated in14), and localgovernments should also be required to compensate the victims adequately. Fifth, there is an obviousneed to improve monitoring, inspection and law enforcement related to food safety in China. Apower-sharing public supervision system should be established that more openly disminates foodquality and safety information which is traditionally vested only with food producers. Such a systemempowers the general public to cosupervi food safety with the Chine government and rai thevigilance of food producers.
It is evident that the Chine government has (whether proactively or by compulsion) taken manypositive steps toward food safety improvement in the past few years. But still, a great deal more needsto be done. While there may be a common belief that the Chine government is incapable ofadmitting mistakes, or reluctant to do so, this is not alw ays the ca. As is demonstrated by the swiftretraction of the Inspection Exemption Certification policy and the newly added penalty terms forfood safety-specific government misconducts, the Chine government can and will make radicalchanges to correct the bad policies made in the past. It is this courage to admit mistakes, and the kindof efficiency demonstrated by the AQSIQ, that give hope for the future of food safety management inChina. REFERENCES
[1] Zuo W. Ministry of Public Security publicizes the ten typical criminal cas of food safety in 2010.
Xinhua News Agency 22 March 2011.
[2] Nyambok EO, Kastner JJ. United States import safety, environmental health, and food safetyregulation in China. Adv Sci 2011;74:28– 34.
[3] World Health Organization. China press relea—UN issues paper on food safety in China. 2008.
中国十大经典广告
[4] Ministry of Health. Good manufacturing practice for powdered formulae for infants and youngchildren,National Food Safety Standard, GB 23790-2010, 2010. (in Chine).
[5] Ministry of Health. General provisions on pre-packaged food labeling, National Food SafetyStandards, GB7718-2011, 2011. (in Chine).
[6] Ministry of Health. Guidelines for the u of food additives, National Food Safety Standards,GB2760-2011, 2011b. (in Chine).
[7] China National Centre for Food Safety Risk Asssment. Chen Zhu: Food safety monitoringnetwork has gradually covered the whole country.渺怎么组词
剑谋[8] Shan J. Food safety monitoring network in shape. China daily 9 March 2012.
[9] United Nations in China. Advancing Food Safety in China. Occasional Paper, August, 2008.
[10] The Standing Committee of the National People’ s Congress of the People’ s Republic of China.
Food Safety Law, 2009. (in Chine).
[11] The Standing Committee of the National People’ s Congress of the People’ s Republic of China.
Food Hygiene Law, 1995. (in Chine).
[12] Li YH, Qi RG, Liu HY. Designing independent regulatory system of food safety in China. Agriculture Agricultural Sci Procedia 2010;1:288– 95.
[13] Zhao YJ, Wen Q. Reflections and understanding on the Food Safety Saw. Young Days, lateAugust issue 2012:P295. (in Chine).
中国食品安全监管和政策控制
在中国在过去的二十年里，食品安全事件不仅威胁到人民健康，同时也引起了国际关注，在国际市场
上，中国是主要粮食出口国。在中国近年来，最臭名昭著的食品安全丑闻是2008年9月曝光的“三聚氰胺奶”事件。这一事件吸引了国际关注，在大约2个月，联合国发起了批示，促使中国改善食品安全。在这篇批示，引导中国需要改变食品安全在大陆的主要控制机制。
这个控制政权的主要弱点将讨论为了提高认识，以及为改进提出建议。
中国食品安全法律和监控
中国政府长期以来一直部署常用的食品安全监管控制，例如，设置最低安全标准或流程，强制性的信息提供和使用条件的要求。此外，自2002年以来，中国通过卫生部已经通过国家食品安全监测监控网络。1196监测站点，网络几乎覆盖了73%的城市和25%的县。2012年3月，在不久的将来，一个新的中国食品网，监控和跟踪病原体引起食源性疾病，以及连接粮食市场、超市、医院、餐馆，将加入填补目前国内食品供应隙监测。
三聚氰胺事件曝光1年后，2009年6月1日中国制定实施了新的食品安全法，取代了1995年颁布的食品卫生法，并已成为中国主要的食品安全保护法律。与之前的卫生法相比，食品安全法明确将最终和协调负责食品安全管理向卫生部也负责食品安全风险评估、制定食品安全标准、食品安全信息传播，为食品检测机构设置守则，以及重大食品安全事件的调查(第四条)。
在第四条所述，义务监督食品生产、流通和服务是由国家质量监督检验检疫总局(国家质检总局，国家工商行政管理局(SAIC)和国家食品药品监督管理局(SFDA)。然而，目前这个监控责任划分为三个部门。通常，国家质检总局将负责监督食品生产、食品流通、上汽和SFDA的食品服务和餐饮。
食品安全法的一个缺点是它狭窄的范围，因为它覆盖的主要工业生产食物。这是目前在一定程度上纠正提到应该实现农产品的质量和安全管理按照质量和安全有关法律(2条)。然而，目前还没有完全实现建立原则，因为没有具体的监管控制食品原材料的生产。
目前的一个新的方面是它授权消费者寻求赔偿问题食品的生产商或经销商金融损失结果，除了赔偿有问题的食品10倍的价格(第96条)。虽然安全法的制定得到了一定的改善，但是如果有关问题食品低价基本食品，如食盐或米饭，其惩罚力度可能仍然是不够的。
此外，目前也有一些评论是关于有关地方政府是否需要对受害者进行赔偿的政府行为。虽然还不清楚经济补偿将由地方政府，目前实施具体的处罚，如解雇和10年禁运食品检验职责，废弃的官员(第93条)。然而，最严重的惩罚这些废弃的公共官员可以找到最新的刑法修正案。
新添加的部分，刑法第408条的规定，如果食品安全监测官员由于其不当行为或疏忽而造成严重或严重损害社会的，将被判处最多5或10年徒刑。这显示了中国中央政府改善国家食品安全治理的政治意愿。
食品安全其他方面的挑战
中国对食品安全密切相关的高成本监控。在中国，食品安全和质量的全面监测是特别昂贵，因为涉及的生产大量的缺点，也更有可能不合格的操作练习。中小企业雇佣雇员不足10人被认为代表70-77%的市场份额，更不用说很多未注册的共存非正式的生产商。例如，在湖南，80%的小作坊没有所需的生产许可证或经营许可证。增加可用的地方财政，以及政府对食品安全监控代理直接解决上述情况。然而，现实情况恰恰相反。公共机构的贫穷的金融能力，尤其是中国西部省份，常常被认为是监管和政府失灵的重要地区。在中国许多地方食品安全当局因为缺乏资金已导致妥协的类型和数量的食物样本购买日常监控和测试。结果，不太富裕的地方当局倾向于低价食品进行测试，让更多的高端食品进行测试。
2001年，中国推出了符合旨在降低监控成本免检认证政策。可以给食品生产商对食品安全进行免费检验，如果享受了大量市场份额，通过连续三次质量检查和实施食品安全标准高于国家。这一政策的初衷是鼓励食品生产商自愿提高生产标准和表现良好在正式检查，以便他们将享有良好声誉和更好的市场份额。然而，这一政策被证明是一个失败的，三聚氰胺牛奶事件，因为第一品牌的奶粉发现含有三聚氰胺本身就是一种免检品牌，这可能是为什么免检认证政策被废除国家质检总局曝光后7天内的三聚氰胺牛奶事件。
，
随后几年的监管结果表明，现行的监管政策仍有改进的余地。2011年，起诉不安全的或不合格的食品达367起，比2010年增加了216%。
结论
怎样提高中国食品安全问题？首先，中国应借鉴国际最佳实践合理化和更好的定义不同部门之间的分工赋予有食品安全职责。在选择一种更好的治理结构，中国可以考虑使用单一代理模式或集成模型。第二，应充分的法律授权农业部(农业部)监控，农产品的完整性通过清晰地陈述这种责任，建立和全面应用原则的目的。第三，金融食品安全事件的受害者赔偿应根据造成的损害，而不是盯住有关食品的价值。第四，作为一个具有一定威胁力的公共机构、废弃的地方政府官员应该受到法律责任和地方政府还应要求充分补偿受害者。第五，在中国有一个明显的需要改进监控、检查和执法相关食品安全。分享公共监管体系应该建立更多的公开传播食品质量和安全信息通常只赋予食品生产商。赋予公众监管与中国政府食品安全的双向监督的系统，提高食品生产商的警觉。
很明显，在过去的几年里中国政府(无论是主动或强制)采取了许多积极措施对食品安全改进。但是，还需要做更多事情。虽然可能是一个普遍认为中国政府是不能承认错误，或者不愿意这么做，这并非总是如此。免检认证的迅速收缩，政策和新添加的食品安全专项政府造假处罚条款，中国政府将改变过去不能适应社会发展的政策。正是这种努力完善相关政策的举措，证明了国家质检总局将加大未来在中国的食品安全管理。
