opportunity-china.co.uk
December 2014 31
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
ImportValue (USD100Million)
Food and Live Animals usedmainly for food
Animal and VegetableOils,
Fats andWaxes
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
At the end of June, China’s top legislature revised
the country’s Food Safety Law in light of a crisis
of confidence in the country’s food industry. The
revision to the law follows a series of incidents over
the past eight years. Pork injectedwith clenbuterol,
the recycling of oil poured down drains, the
production of medicine capsules with toxic gelatin
and the use of illegal additives in growing bean
sprouts are just a few of the scandals that have
angered the general public and brought the issue of
food safety into stark focus for the government.
W
ith the public so incensed by food safety
issues, companies have been attempting
their own damage control in an effort to get
customers back on side and avoid further
incidents which damage their brands both
domestically and internationally. The best example isWalmart,
which has vowed to increase its spending on food safety in
China to 300million yuan in the next three years, up from the
previously announced figure of 100million yuan.
The company has also suggested it will increaseDNA
testing onmeat products and in-house supplier inspections.
Last year, the State Council published an institutional reform planwhich
meant that food companies, manufacturers and operators shoulderedmore
responsibility when it came to guaranteeing food safety. The reform led to the
implementation of a traceability system, whichwould provide accountability in
future scandals, and also attempted to regulate online shopping of foodwith
regards toB2B or B2Cwebsites. Severe penalties were also put inplace to
discourage illegal activities or deliberatemanipulation of China’s food safety laws.
According to the State Council’s institutional reform plan published last year,
supervision responsibilities in the area of food safety were transferred from
the State Administration of Industry andCommerce to the China Food and
Drug Administration.
However, despite helping to improve food safety in general, the existing
system is not effective and the fines in place do not deter offenders according
to Zhang Yong, director of the administration.
Prior to the latest revision of the law, Wu Jingming, professor at the China
University of Political Science and Law, noted that the position of the China Food
andDrug Administration needed to be clarified as part of any amendment that
theNational People’s Congress planned to introduce.
With the government seemingly aware of the need for such a clarification,
the latest amendment singles out the Food andDrug Administration as the sole
supervisory body for food production, transportation, and catering. Aside from
specifying the Food andDrug Administration as the sole supervisory body, the
revision alsomakes foodmanufacturers the primary sector responsible for food
safety when it comes to establishing liability for a problem. Zhu Yi, an associate
professor fromChina Agricultural University, believes that the changewill provide
a legal basis formore effective supervision.
“Previously, if a tomatowas sold at a vegetablemarket, it fell under the
jurisdiction of the Agricultural Department. When it was sold in the supermarket,
it was under the Industry andCommerceDepartment.”
“When the tomatowas processed into tomato sauce, it fell under the
Supervision of theQuality InspectionDepartment. If it was served in a restaurant,
the Food andDrug Administrationwouldbe responsible for supervision. Now,
with this amendment, the Food andDrug Administrationwill be responsible for
all processes. It will help plug the loopholes in the supervision system.”
Director of the Food andDrug Administration Zhang Yong has stated that the
country will impose the harshest penalties on offenders and supervisors. “The
lawwill set up the strictest legal liability system. For offenders who add poisonous
and deleterious substances in the food, the authorities can remove their licenses
and impose fines up to 30 times the value of their products. For officials who are
dismissed for issuing fake evaluation reports, they could be banned from food
safety supervisionposts for life.”
Despitehelping to
improve food safety
ingeneral, the
existing system isnot
effectiveand the
fines inplacedonot
deter offenders.
“