In food safety supervision, should include at least four aspects of supervision, namely, self-regulation of industry organizations, government supervision, social supervision, consumer self-help. The author engaged in the practice of law for nearly a decade, from the perspective of grass-roots legal workers, combined with the "Food Safety Law", "Tort Liability Law" and other provisions of the new ideas and suggestions, I hope to be able to the city's various departments how to better fulfill their functions to strengthen the supervision and management of food safety work has been beneficial.

I. Increase the administrative and criminal liability of government officials for inaction or misbehavior.

In recent years, the frequent occurrence of food safety incidents around the world, so that the relevant government departments of food safety supervision dereliction of duty has been criticized by the community. The inaction of certain functional departments makes food safety supervision a sham, some of the state organs responsible for food safety supervision staff, although suspected of dereliction of duty or abuse of power, but rarely be held criminally responsible. Ensure the safety of the people's tables, relying solely on the punishment of the relevant enterprises is obviously not enough, must be negligent regulatory departments and staff into the scope of punishment, the supervision of negligent personnel to be held legally responsible. In real life, local governments and functional departments for various purposes, dereliction of duty, negligence in the performance of the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and purify the food market order of the safety supervision and management responsibilities, resulting in profit-oriented food production and operation of food production and operation of food safety problems, some of the major food safety accidents have occurred time and again. Even some functional departments do not have the legal qualifications of food production and operation of the operator to give the green light, illegal administrative licenses and so on. The Food Safety Law grants the administrative authorities of the food safety supervision responsibilities for the regulated is the administrative power, national public power, for the majority of consumers and the public is a heavy responsibility. In order to urge the administrative power holders to perform their duties, "food safety law" from the legal responsibility of the functional departments to refuse or negligence in the exercise of regulatory duties, as well as the abuse of regulatory duties of the legal responsibility. Such legal responsibility includes both administrative penalties imposed by the State on government officials and the State's liability for compensation to victimized consumers. At the same time, the Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) added the crime of dereliction of duty in food safety supervision, according to this article, constitutes the crime of dereliction of duty in food safety supervision, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to less than five years of fixed-term imprisonment or criminal detention; if the consequences are particularly serious, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to more than five years and less than ten years of fixed-term imprisonment. As Yichang has not yet appeared major food safety incidents, so should be more prominent publicity food safety supervision dereliction of duty crime.

The author also believes that if a food safety incident occurs, the person in charge of the regulatory department should take the initiative to resign, and the main person in charge of the local government should also be removed from office. This accountability mechanism for the firm establishment of the rule of law, responsible government and the new concept of service-oriented government, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers has produced a positive legal effect, social and political effects. In order to normalize, institutionalize and standardize this accountability mechanism, Article 95 of the Food Safety Law stipulates the administrative sanctions for the main leaders of local governments and the main leaders of regulatory authorities. Although there is only one article of the law, it is clear from this article that the "top hand" of the government and the "top hand" of the functional departments may be removed from the "hat" due to the violation of the statutory food supervision duties of the local government and the department. They may be removed from their "hats" for violating the statutory food regulatory duties of their localities and departments. According to the "Food Safety Law" Article 95, paragraph 1 of the provisions of the local government at or above the county level in the supervision and management of food safety in violation of the provisions of the law, failure to fulfill their responsibilities, the administrative region of major food safety accidents, resulting in serious social impact, according to the law on the directly responsible for the personnel in charge of the directly responsible personnel and other directly responsible personnel to give a major fault, demotion, dismissal or dismissal of sanctions. The "directly responsible persons in charge and other directly responsible persons" in this case include both the deputy leaders of local governments in charge of food safety supervision (such as deputy county governors and deputy district governors), as well as the full-time leaders of local governments. According to paragraph 2 of Article 95 of the Food Safety Law, if the health administration, agriculture administration, quality supervision, industry and commerce administration, food and drug supervision and management departments or other relevant administrative departments at or above the county level violate the provisions of the Law, fail to perform the duties stipulated in the Law, or abuse their powers, neglect their duties, or commit malpractice for personal gain, the persons in charge of the person in charge directly responsible and the other persons in charge directly responsible shall be given a demerit or a punishment of demotion; if the cause of serious injury is a serious injury, the person in charge of the food safety supervision work shall be punished by a severe punishment. demoted; if serious consequences are caused, dismissal or expulsion shall be imposed; the person in charge shall take the blame and resign.

Second, the establishment of information **** enjoy the platform, to strengthen the whole process of food safety supervision.

As food safety involves food production, processing, storage, transportation, circulation and consumption of many links, any one regulatory department is difficult to bear the heavy responsibility of safety supervision alone. In the case of "a department can not control", the current food safety regulatory system was forced to choose a number of departments to regulate the idea of segmentation. Among them, the agricultural sector is responsible for the supervision of the production of primary agricultural products, quality inspection departments are responsible for the supervision of food production and processing links, industry and commerce departments are responsible for the supervision of food circulation links, health departments are responsible for the catering industry and canteens and other consumer links of supervision, the food and drug regulatory authorities are responsible for the comprehensive supervision of food safety, organization and coordination and investigation and handling of major accidents in accordance with the law.

Segmented regulatory system, although it helps to urge the relevant departments to perform their respective duties, to avoid the phenomenon of "a department can not control", but also appeared "more departments to control the bad" drawbacks: there is regulatory duplication between the regulatory departments, there are also Regulatory blind spot. In the "field" to "table" of the various food production and management links, it seems that agriculture, quality supervision, industry and commerce, health and other departments "heavily guarded", but toxic and harmful foods are still in the market However, toxic and harmful foods are still proliferating in the market. When consumers complain about the quality of products, there is either a lack of information sharing among the relevant departments or they pass the buck to each other. For example, it is not clear which department is responsible for matters that do not belong to any of the links, such as risk assessment of food safety, formulation of food safety standards and publication of food safety information, which objectively gives rise to the serious problem of cross-functionality of departments and unclear accountability. Because of the unclear division of responsibilities, some departments in the interests of small groups, driven by the adoption of the "favorable on the rush to manage, no profit let the management" pragmatic thinking, is bound to weaken the regulatory efficiency of the regulatory authorities, and even miss the best regulatory time.

In order to completely break the "a department can not control, multiple departments to control the bad" vicious circle, should establish information **** enjoy, fast and efficient, seamless throughout the food safety supervision system, especially the city's Health Bureau, Quality and Technical Supervision Administration, Food and Drug Administration, Administration for Industry and Commerce and other departments should be Establish a communication platform to ensure smooth flow of information. As far as the division of regulatory responsibilities at the local level is concerned, Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Act provides: "Local people's governments at or above the county level shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the State Council, determine the responsibilities for food safety supervision and management of the health administration, agricultural administration, quality supervision, industrial and commercial administration, and food and drug supervision and administration at their respective levels. The relevant departments in their respective areas of responsibility for the supervision and management of food safety in the administrative region.

In order to eliminate regulatory gaps and improve regulatory efficiency, Article 6 of the Food Safety Law also requires that health administration, agricultural administration, quality supervision, industry and commerce administration, and food and drug supervision and management departments at and above the county level strengthen their communication, work closely with each other, and exercise their authority and responsibility in accordance with their respective division of labor and in accordance with the law. In order to give full play to the advantages of local governments' regulatory resources for local food enterprises, local governments are required to take overall responsibility for the supervision of food safety in their administrative regions. Article 5, paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of the Food Safety Law provides: "Local people's governments at or above the county level are uniformly responsible for, leading, organizing and coordinating the supervision and management of food safety in their administrative areas, establishing and improving the working mechanism for the supervision and management of the whole process of food safety; unifying the leadership and directing the response to food safety emergencies; perfecting and implementing the system of responsibility for the supervision and management of food safety. Food safety supervision and management departments to comment on, assessment. Departments under the superior people's government in the lower administrative regions set up institutions should be in the location of the people's government's unified organization, coordination, according to law to do a good job in the supervision and management of food safety". Therefore, in the establishment of information **** enjoyment mechanism to strengthen the whole process of management should be coordinated by the local government.

The author believes that the establishment of information **** enjoy, strengthen the communication platform construction, should be one hand to grasp the division of labor of supervision, one hand to grasp the cooperation of supervision. In other words, both emphasize each regulatory department in accordance with the law diligently, authoritatively and efficiently perform their respective statutory duties; but also emphasize the regulatory departments between the information *** enjoy, regulatory linkage, seamless docking, and ultimately the full establishment of a 360-degree all-encompassing, 24-hour 24-hour coverage of all kinds of food production and processing, distribution and consumption of the cooperative regulatory system. Compared with the regulatory division of labor, regulatory cooperation is more challenging and arduous.

Third, in the civil compensation lawsuit to increase the application of punitive damages.

China's "Tort Liability Law," Article 47 provides: "Knowing that the product is defective still production, sales, resulting in death or serious damage to the health of others, the infringer has the right to request the appropriate punitive damages." This article provides for punitive damages for product defects. Article 96 of China's Food Safety Law stipulates that anyone who violates the provisions of this law and causes damage to persons, property or other damages shall be liable for compensation in accordance with the law. The production of food that does not meet food safety standards or the sale of food that is known to be not in compliance with food safety standards, the consumer, in addition to claiming compensation for damages, may also demand from the producer or seller payment of compensation of ten times the price. According to Article 99 of the Food Safety Law, food "refers to all kinds of finished products and raw materials for human consumption or drinking, as well as articles that are traditionally used as both food and medicine". Accordingly, food includes both unprocessed raw materials and processed food products. Tort Liability Law, Chapter V of the "product liability" in the product, the Product Quality Law for the product. According to the provisions of Article 2 of the Product Quality Law, "product" refers to "processed, made, for sale of products", if the food meets the "processed, made" and "for sale". If a food product meets the requirements of "processed, made" and "used for sale", it also constitutes a product, and food products belong to the scope of "product liability" under the Tort Liability Law, as well as the scope of food products adjusted by the Food Safety Law. Therefore, because of the defects of food products and suffered damage to consumers, both under the Food Safety Law, Article 96, paragraph 2, can also be based on the Tort Liability Law, Article 47 request for punitive damages.

However, Article 96(2) of the Food Safety Law is aimed at food products that "do not meet food safety standards"; while Article 47 of the Tort Liability Law is aimed at defective products, and in the case of food products, at defective food products. However, the Tort Liability Law itself does not specify the concept of product defects, which requires reference to special laws. According to Article 46 of the Product Quality Law, defect refers to the existence of unreasonable danger of the product endangering the safety of persons and other people's property; the product has a national standard or industry standard for the protection of human health and the safety of persons and property, means that it does not conform to the standard. Only from the textual point of view, products that do not comply with food safety standards are of course defective products; if they comply with food safety standards, they are not defective products. Article 96(2) of the Food Safety Law and Article 47 of the Tort Liability Law do not give rise to inconsistencies in the types of products subject to punitive damages in the food sector. However, there is a doctrine that should be unreasonably dangerous as a standard to determine whether the product is defective, even if the product's performance indicators are in line with the product's mandatory standards, the product may still be defective; Judicial practice has also been supported by cases. Therefore, even if a food product meets the food safety standards, consumers can not request "Food Safety Law" 96 paragraph 2 punitive damages; but if there is an unreasonable risk, still constitutes a defective product, the infringer can still request "Tort Liability Law" Article 47 punitive damages.

The author would like to emphasize that, according to the "Food Safety Law" 96 paragraph 2, as long as the product does not meet food safety standards, consumers can request punitive damages. Article 47 of the Tort Liability Law, the scope of application of the former is significantly reduced, only in the case of personal injury caused by death, serious damage to health, the infringer can request punitive damages. That is to say, the production of a food product does not meet the food safety standards or the sale of food products that do not meet the food safety standards, constitutes the "Food Safety Law," Article 96, paragraph 2 of the meaning of punitive damages, but if there is no serious personal injury, does not constitute the "Tort Liability Law," Article 47 of the meaning of punitive damages. Therefore, the author believes that in the civil compensation lawsuit to strengthen the Food Safety Law on the application of punitive damages.

However, from the point of view of the cost of defending the right, no one will defend the right for ten times punitive damages. But the Food Safety Law, despite the introduction of punitive damages, the amount is only ten times the compensation. This compensation is too low. Since punitive damages should not be capped, the purpose of setting up this system is to let the counterfeiting enterprises know that if 10 000 people have bought the products, and even if only one consumer has filed a claim for compensation, the whole enterprise may collapse. For that kind of intentional and malicious behavior, it should be punished fatally in financial terms. Therefore, in judicial practice should also be more widely applied to mental damages to make up for the inadequacy of its provisions, of course, the author also looks forward to the improvement of the law.