The first plasticizer standard is just a kind of psychological comfort

On June 10, the SCARC approved and authorized Xiamen Inspection and Quarantine Bureau to take the lead in drafting the “Determination of Phthalates in Food” industry standard. Recently, this industry standard was approved by the China National Certification and Accreditation Regulatory Commission. After the standard formulation and release are implemented, the production behavior of food production enterprises can be regulated, and the plasticizers in foods can be comprehensively tested. (July 7th, "Beijing Times")

Although the speed at which the relevant departments introduced the first food plasticizer standard was indeed fast enough, it was a psychological comfort that was brought to the people. It was still a predictable implementation effect and it is still unknown. Food safety standards, of course, must be in line with international standards. However, supervision needs to comply with international practices. If there is no supervision, advanced plasticizer standards will be a cloud.

Supervision should be divided into three levels: In accordance with the basic principle of reciprocity of rights and responsibilities, the regulators will assume the responsibility of day-to-day management and, at the same time, have the appropriate authorities. Who will be responsible for the full implementation of the first plasticizer standards? If it is to continue to maintain the way in the past, it will inevitably result in the unclear boundaries of law enforcement, and there will be an embarrassing situation in which “no one is in trouble and no one is in trouble”. In view of past experience and lessons, it is suggested that the authority for law enforcement should be concentrated in a certain department, which is conducive to enhancing the degree of professionalization of law enforcement and facilitating the reconsideration of superior departments.

The law without deterrence is like a piece of waste paper. Although this is extreme, it is not unreasonable. The reason why the people fear the law is that the rigidity of the accountability that the law possesses is like setting up a high-tension line that can be easily damaged. In the past, why were many laws difficult to translate into practical constraints? The reason is that the cost of making illegal activities is so low that it becomes a negative inducement for those who smoke their hearts and minds to be uneasy. No longer this kind of system irony appears in the implementation of the first food plasticizer standards, it must quickly improve the relevant legal accountability, not only to allow lawbreakers to accept the economic penalties for bankruptcy, but also face imprisonment of criminal responsibility.

One of the institutional paradoxes we often talk about is the so-called “who will supervise law enforcement officials”, mapping the degree of social harm caused by the abuse of public power once it is even more so than ordinary people. Whether it is law enforcement officials who routinely have laws or regulations that are ineffective, or collaborate further internally or externally, use power to provide umbrellas for lawbreakers, and provide rent-seeking benefits, they are actually the result of the lack of supervision of power.

Almost every major food safety incident has exposed the issue of malfeasance and has led to a large number of officials. It is the inspection of pork quality that is as small as a vegetable market. You can buy a “small corruption” with a qualified official seal for five yuan. It was as big as some senior officials of the State Food and Drug Administration in the previous two years that were bought by interest groups and used for food safety legislation. The major cases and cases highlight the fact that the current power restriction mechanism is still far from perfect, and various forms of supervision, such as the public and public opinion, have not yet been fully empowered. Confined to top-down administrative management is soft and weak, and even the strange images of the dismissed officials returning in the short term may not be enough to cause any legal deterrence to those responsible for administrative violations.

There have been public feelings that the days of administrative supervisors in certain areas are too good. They usually sit in the office and do nothing. In the event of a major security incident, either the sports task arranged by the superior or the unlucky was investigated. Even if it is dismissed, it will not be long before it is a returning “good guy”. These words vividly reflect the serious misalignment of power responsibilities, making it easy for the regulatory defense to fall back into the back door of the system for free access by lawbreakers.

What are we lacking in the endless food safety crisis? Instead of formulating standards and regulations that appear to be theoretically perfect, the specifics of monitoring powers and responsibilities are meticulously executed day after day, and they are tightly in place. It is the perpetuity of the “taxpayer will” to urge civil servants to perform their duties, not As is the case today, the victims are always the people, and even the most basic victims of the law are unable to protect their rights. Without the supervision of administrative law enforcers, even the best plasticizer standards are clouds.