Current location - Recipe Complete Network - Catering training - Please clarify which new systems have been established by comparing the Food Safety Law with the Food Hygiene Law.
Please clarify which new systems have been established by comparing the Food Safety Law with the Food Hygiene Law.

Comparative Analysis of Food Safety Law and Food Hygiene Law

The Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China was adopted by the Seventh Session of the 11th the NPC Standing Committee of the People's Republic of China on February 28th, 2119, and has been implemented since June 1th, 2119. The Food Hygiene Law of the People's Republic of China, which was implemented in 2114, was abolished at the same time, which means that food safety supervision in China has entered a new stage. From the perspective of a law enforcement officer, this paper makes a preliminary analysis of some changes and existing problems in the Food Safety Law through the comparison of the two laws:

1. In the General Provisions of the Food Safety Law, Through the level of law, the management by stages has been given a clear identity and scope of authority. In addition to the original departments of agriculture, health, industry and commerce, quality inspection, food and medicine, a new institution, the Food Safety Committee of the State Council, has emerged. In the previous work, both food and medicine and industry and commerce, when exercising the power of coordination, they will encounter all kinds of resistance because of the lack of a unified superior department among various departments. The establishment of this institution can avoid the previous "coordination" In the Food Safety Law, the local people's governments at or above the county level are not only required to be responsible for, lead, organize and coordinate the food safety supervision and management in their respective administrative areas, but also given the power to evaluate and examine the food safety supervision and management departments. A considerable number of regulatory agencies are vertical management systems, and their annual work does not accept the assessment of local governments. This time, the law has clarified the responsibilities of local governments, which has enabled local governments to truly exercise their power and increased the binding force on vertical management regulatory agencies. According to the principle of the unification of rights and responsibilities, the Food Safety Law also provides penalties for local governments and regulatory departments for non-performance of their duties or dereliction of duty. It is the first time in the laws and regulations in the food field that the main person in charge should take the blame and resign when serious consequences are caused by major accidents, which can try to avoid the previous situation of "deputy and small soldiers taking the thunder and settling their families at their regular jobs". However, there are also some problems in the future work. During the reform, some law enforcement agencies are reluctant to cancel vertical management. Without considering personal treatment, a very important reason is that when local governments consider local economic growth, taxation, population employment and other factors, they will cause some resistance to the work of law enforcement departments. Vertical management is relatively small, and these factors will be very obvious when they are returned to local management. Now, the law has increased the binding force of the government on the regulatory authorities, so when there is no major food safety accident, how to ensure the law enforcement of the regulatory authorities and how to ensure that the new law will not become the umbrella of local protectionism has become a very sensitive issue.

2. Compared with the Food Hygiene Law, the chapter on food safety risk monitoring and assessment is added. This chapter embodies the idea of putting prevention first, draws lessons from several food safety accidents with great influence, puts supervision first, starts early, and tries to eliminate hidden dangers in the bud. This part of the responsibilities are basically in the hands of national ministries and commissions, but there is no corresponding penalty in this part, which gives people the feeling of "not being punished as a doctor". A few years ago, the corruption incident in the drug supervision system appeared in the certification link before production. How to avoid the situation of "enriching experts, enriching enterprises, suffering the people, arresting corrupt officials and destroying the system" is very critical, and this aspect should be supplemented by more detailed rules.

3. In the chapter on food safety standards in the Food Safety Law, it is clearly stated that the safety standards should be formulated by the Ministry of Health, and all kinds of original standards should be integrated, so that all kinds of standards in the past have a unified label, which can be said to be a bright spot in this legislation.

fourth, the requirements of food production and operation are the core link of food professional law, and the enforceability and perfection of this law will be reflected in it.

Article 27 of the Food Safety Law puts forward requirements for food production and operation. Compared with Article 8 of the Food Hygiene Law, although the Food Safety Law sets requirements for the production and operation process, there is no corresponding penalty in this law, which makes this part of law enforcement lack of coercive power. We call for making up for it by formulating implementation rules as soon as possible, otherwise supervision will become empty talk. Item (11) of Article 27 of the Food Safety Law stipulates that water should meet the hygienic standards for drinking water stipulated by the state. If this provision is put before the system reform, there will be no big problem, but if the functions of catering service are transferred from the health administrative department to the Food and Drug Administration according to the requirements of the reform, a new problem will arise. Food has been handed over, but the supervision of drinking water is still in the health administrative department, so the contradiction of who will take care of the water used in the catering industry appears, and who will deal with the accidents caused by contaminated water and contaminated food, which should be coordinated and agreed as soon as possible, otherwise there will only be prevarication.

Article 28 of the Food Safety Law puts forward requirements for foods whose production and marketing are prohibited. Compared with Article 9 of the Food Hygiene Law, there are two major changes. The first change is that the Food Safety Law has added the requirement of "main and auxiliary foods specially designed for infants and other specific groups whose nutritional components do not meet the food safety standards", from which we can see the shadow of the "Big Head Baby" incident in that year. In Article 6 of the Food Hygiene Law, there is a requirement that "food should be non-toxic and harmless, meet the nutritional requirements, and have corresponding sensory characteristics such as color, fragrance and taste", but it is actually not included in the scope of prohibiting production and operation. Through an incident, the country realized that insufficient nutrition of food will also cause major accidents, so this change was made. The second change is that the article 9 (11) of the Food Hygiene Law stipulates that "the sale of food is specifically prohibited by the health administrative department of the State Council or the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government for special needs such as disease prevention" has been changed into "the food whose production and operation are explicitly prohibited by the state for special needs such as disease prevention" in the Food Safety Law, and the power to formulate the prohibition of food production and operation has been recovered and centralized. It also means that some existing local laws and regulations will no longer have legal effect after June 1, but the concept of "state" needs to be further clarified in the future work. Will this order be issued by the the State Council Food Safety Committee in a unified way, or can the state-level administrative departments under the State Council issue it separately according to their respective regulatory links?

In terms of administrative licensing, the Food Safety Law reflects the policy inclination towards farmers, stipulating that "individual farmers do not need to obtain permission for food circulation to sell their own edible agricultural products", but there will be some troubles in practical work. How to determine whether the seller is a farmer or not depends on whether the household registration book is a rural household registration? Regardless of whether the administrative departments have the right to check the household registration books of citizens, in some towns and villages, the vast majority of people are rural hukou, but not everyone works in agriculture. For example, many of these things are traded in rural areas, and the elderly and children sell them. In this case, is the food sold by the elderly and children considered as their own production?

the food safety law puts forward that the state encourages the implementation of hazard analysis and critical control point system, which is the original HACCP system, indicating that the state hopes to further standardize the food industry, with good intentions. However, whether this system is suitable for China's national conditions, especially in the field of catering services, and how high it can be implemented need to be investigated on the spot. In particular, there is a requirement in the law that "certification bodies do not charge any fees for follow-up investigation", which is ridiculous. At present, certification bodies are all third-party companies and are for profit, so it is obviously unrealistic to let them work voluntarily. In order to meet this legal requirement, unless governments at all levels set up their own public certification bodies, which are funded by the government, this is contrary to the principle of streamlining the state institutions and separating government from enterprises. This provision is suitable for different regulatory areas to be decided by the corresponding regulatory authorities according to their respective characteristics, and it is not suitable for such a unified provision in the law.

Compared with the Food Hygiene Law, the Food Safety Law has greatly changed the requirements and penalties for employees' physical examination. In terms of requirements, the safety law has removed the term "including pathogen carriers" in the health law. Taking hepatitis B as an example, it is divided into narrow and broad concepts from different angles of clinical medicine and preventive medicine. If the standards cannot be unified, it will bring certain hidden dangers to food supervision. From the penalty point of view, the Food Safety Law has no penalty for acts without health certificates. If it cannot be remedied by implementing rules, then the requirements in this respect will be empty talk.

The requirements of the Food Safety Law are much more detailed than those of the Food Hygiene Law. With clear requirements and penalties, it can be said that great progress has been made in this respect, but the time limit for preservation is too rigid, and whether the preservation period of two years is too long is debatable, especially for some small catering industries, the purchase record of one year ago is of great significance, just for inspection.

after the "Sanlu milk powder incident", the state attached great importance to the management of food additives. There are four provisions in the Food Safety Law that all require food additives. Compared with the Food Hygiene Law, the new law is more detailed and standardized.

For health food, the Food Safety Law has more provisions, but further implementation rules are needed to further refine it. It is only in the provisions of the Food Safety Law, a national law, that the word "claim" appears illegally in French. Even if it is written as "propaganda and labeling", it is very formal, and "claim" makes people laugh and cry.

The recall system stipulated in the Food Safety Law can be said to be an important sign that China's food safety supervision is in line with international standards. It has changed from the previous self-discipline behavior of enterprises to the compulsory measures of administrative departments, which is of great significance to strengthening law enforcement and creating an environment for mass supervision.

The supervision of food advertisements is also stipulated in the Food Safety Law, which provides a certain legal basis for the management of more and more organizations and stars in the market to endorse food products, and fills the gap in the previous laws.

5. In the regulations on food inspection, the experience of accepting several vicious accidents clearly stipulates that food shall not be exempted from inspection. In the daily sampling and testing, the Food Hygiene Law stipulates free sampling, which is more general, while in the Food Safety Law, it is clear that the administrative department must buy samples and shall not charge any fees from the merchants, and the expenses arising from testing shall be borne by the administrative department. On the one hand, the introduction of these clockwork shows that the government is reducing the burden on enterprises and avoiding collecting inspection fees for increasing income. On the other hand, it means that if the financial allocation is insufficient or the local government's economic level is low, some work will be affected, and there may be cases where it is not inspected, and it is less inspected. How to solve this problem is not only within the ability of the administrative department, but also needs more policy support.

VI. In the Food Safety Law, a special chapter stipulates the handling of food safety accidents. Compared with the Food Hygiene Law, the contents are much more, and the responsibilities and handling procedures of departments at all levels are stipulated at the legal level, which clarifies the responsibilities of CDC in handling such incidents and solves the division of responsibilities caused by the reform of health supervision system for many years. In the legal provisions, it is also clear that responsibility should be investigated. In the provisions of the Food Safety Law, it is put forward that "no unit or individual shall conceal, falsely report or delay the report of food safety accidents, and shall not destroy relevant evidence", and the corresponding penalty shall be imposed, but in actual operation, the identification of evidence of destruction needs to be clear. For example, after a family has dinner in a restaurant, they start to have symptoms at night and go to a medical institution together, and the medical institution reports it as required. In this case, the restaurant is This situation is very common, so in this case, is it considered that the merchant destroyed the evidence? Whether it is determined by subjective intention or actual effect needs to be explained in the later detailed rules or judicial interpretation.

VII. In the part of supervision and management, the Food Safety Law basically applies the relevant contents in the special regulations of the State Council, which increases the scope of power that all levels and departments can publicize and announce to the outside world, and avoids the situation that "many people say one thing, but one person says another". Compared with the Food Hygiene Law, there is one thing missing from the Food Safety Law, that is, supervisors have the obligation to keep confidential the technical information provided by producers and operators that is not illegal. This article should be clearly defined by law, and it is the protection of taxpayers' business secrets.

VIII. Formulation of legal responsibilities of the Food Safety Law and the Food Hygiene Law: The Food Safety Law applies the model specially stipulated by the State Council, raises the bottom line of the amount of punishment, puts forward the level of administrative punishment, and makes it clear that after an accident, the main person in charge of the accident unit shall not engage in food safety management within a certain time limit. The biggest feature of the formulation of the legal liability of the Food Safety Law lies in the provisions of Articles 96 and 97, which give consumers the basis for the amount of claims after losses and the right to receive civil compensation first, which fully embodies the humanization of China law. However, there are still some problems to be explained and solved in the penalties in the Food Safety Law. Some statutory requirements do not stipulate penalties, such as employees' lack of health certificates, and the food production and operation process does not meet the statutory requirements. Compared with the Food Hygiene Law, the penalties after food poisoning incidents are not listed separately in the Food Safety Law, and the relevant departments need to explain the concept of "serious circumstances" in the law so as to carry out their work. Among the penalties in the Food Hygiene Law, there are only two cases of illegal income and no illegal income. According to the departmental regulations of the Ministry of Health, it is relatively simple to include the case where evidence cannot be obtained in the scope of no illegal income. In Articles 84, 85 and 86 of the Food Safety Law, there are two concepts: illegal income and value of goods. How to distinguish these two concepts and how to define them need to be clear. In the penalty of the safety law, the amount of punishment is determined by the value of goods, and some problems will be encountered in practical work. Let me cite a few examples: 1. An enterprise has been found to be illegal, and the amount involved is very high, far exceeding the standard line of 11,111 yuan stipulated by law. In order to reduce the amount of punishment, the business owner estimates that important evidence such as account books and accounts are hidden or even burned. The administrative department knows that the amount involved is very high, but it is impossible to obtain evidence. How to operate in this case? 2. Many individual small-scale catering businesses have low cultural quality of employees, and they don't have account books at all, and they can't keep accounts. They can't tell what the illegal income or the value of the goods is. How can we make a final conclusion? 3. A high-end seafood restaurant has