Food safety problems seem to be the biggest scandal in China recently. In April a shocking fact was revealed to the public that some steamed buns sold in large supermarkets in Shanghai were dyed with unidentified chemicals. The news came when people were still alarmed by the reported clenbuteroltainted pork sold on market. Later cases， such as poisoned steamed buns in Wenzhou， noodles flavored with ink and paraffin in Guangdong province， and toxic bean sprouts in Liaoning province， emerged one by one. People’s nerves were stricken by a spate of food contamination emergencies again and again， as by pounding hands on piano keys.The tainted steamed buns case was tackled just as other major food safety emergencies， which always went through the following five phases， i.e. revelation by authoritative media， declaration of position by relevant officials， conviction of crime of certain people， and disregarding after some time. These five phases seem to be old tricks that are foreseeable. However， the buns case in Shanghai may represented a watershed in food safety emergencies measures as this one occurred in Shanghai， one of the most developed cities in China; the food involved are buns， a staple consumed in large quantity daily; and masses are increasingly discontent because of a string of food safety scares earlier.Premier Wen Jiabao said on April 14， two days after the reporting of tainted steamed buns， that “these virulent food incidents have shown the grave situation of the degradation of morality and the loss of credits.”Moreover， Chinese vice Premier Li Keqiang stated that severe penalties must be imposed on violators in accordance with the Food Safety Law to“l(fā)et the violators pay dearly” and send message to others. The two premiers expressed， to the 1.3 billion Chinese people， their grief over the current situation and their determination to make changes. Maybe the top-level leaders in China have realized that food safety has become a problem for the whole nation and it is of great urgency to revamp food safety which may affect social stability.A famous political scientist in Shanghai who is unwilling to give his name also believes that the tainted steamed buns incident in Shanghai is very shocking and will cause a lot of trouble if such problems can not be resolved as soon as possible.Unqualified steamed buns are created by several related parties.The China Central Television (CCTV) program Advice to Consumers， by which the tainted steamed buns in Shanghai was disclosed， made secret inquiries into the workshops in a branch of Shanghai Shenglu Food Company and large supermarkets in Shanghai， such as Hualian and Lianhua and then concluded that problems may rise at any step from the beginning of production to the final step of selling. Shenglu Food Company was granted Food Production License but still it made steamed buns in filthy environment， used additives and pigments illegally， recycled old buns as new， and relabeled these expired buns with 1 production dates. The food production supervision agency ordered factories to send in samples to test; however， they just finished testing in their offices carelessly. Supermarkets also finished testing carelessly or even skipped testing. All these checking processes were just perfunctory.As a result， every day there were about 30，000 steamed buns made in such way， which the producers acknowledged that they would rather die than eat， being delivered into hundreds of stores of Hualian， Lianhua and Dia openly and then onto the dining table of consumers in large quantity. Many consumers firmly hold that there are other shady manufacturers of substandard steamed buns besides the reported Shenglu Food Company.The situation is ridiculous. The manufacturer， as a factory established according to official standard， is expected to produce qualified products; however， it had been making illegal goods for years. The supervision department is an officially operating division， but it always neglects its duty. The supermarkets are normal large supermarkets， but it sells shoddy products. These “authorities” disappointed masses in the matter of food safety. Even these entities， which should have been most trustworthy， can no longer be trusted， let alone hawkers， vendors， small workshops and knockoff makers that don’t have a fixed production site. These parties co-created a society where food safety is hard to trust and consumers feel unsafe and helpless.Most frighteningly， the steamed buns case in Shanghai also demonstrated that a loose alliance might have been formed between manufacturers and supermarkets， which are against the interests of consumers. After obtaining production licenses from quality supervision departments， producers are able to make and sell contaminated steamed buns due to the dereliction of duty on the part of supervision departments. The supervision departments are happy to enjoy leisure time; only when some scandal emerges will they make concentrated efforts to fulfill their duty and then publish some perfunctory self-criticism speeches. The supermarkets know there must be something fishy behind the low prices of the steamed buns， but they choose to keep silent because they believe the cheap products will attract consumers and in case of exposure they can escape responsibility and pretend to be innocent and sorry. What’s more， there have been disclosures by news media that in order to sell products in major supermarkets some food producers often agree to share profits with supermarkets and in return supermarkets agree to lower their requirements of food quality.Questioning quality supervision departments about food safetyLike other serious food safety scandals such as the melamine-mixed milk powder incident and clenbuterol-tainted pork， the steamed buns case in Shanghai triggered a new round of questioning and reflection about production， regulation， distribution and other steps， among which experts mainly criticized problems in production and supervision.Producers are criticized for violating the law and morality standard for personal gains， and worsening moral values of society due to the lack of self-restraint. As for the regulating step， experts blamed delinquent supervision departments， backward testing technologies， lack of effective correctional system. They also said that the responsibilities of supervisory depart- ments are not clear enough. Too many cooks spoil the broth， because every department is supposed to be involved but none of them are clear about their duties. So， more supervisory departments don’t mean more problems will be solved.All of the above opinions are correct. Now let’s get to the root of the problem: who should be held most responsible， producers， supervisors or distributors? There is no clear answer to this question， still we should think about this: only producers get to be held responsible， overhauled， and punished， while executive branches in charge of supervision， such as quality control department and administration for industry and commerce， actually only take the responsibility of spot checking， apologizing and making promises to correct mistakes. Probably effective supervision on power is lacking， which may cause serious problems.There are only two articles in the current Food Safety Law concerning the penalty on relevant administration and supervision departments for their dereliction of duty. However， there’s no specific definition of what constitutes“dereliction of duty”. The law only states that “negligence or misconduct by regulatory agencies should be identified and responsible personnel shall be“given the punishment of recording a special demerit， demotion or removal from the office”， which are all limited to administrative punishment. Even so after the emergence of a string of major food safety incidents in China which rocked the whole country and the rest of the world， only personnel in charge of production and distribution were punished， instead of supervision officials. The penalty-free supervision departments always make spot checking overnight， declare their determination and conclude lessons learnt after a spate of major food safety incidents. Such spirits tend to be considered as just a show by authorities， behind which lies the arrogant and insincere power.Take the tainted steamed buns incident in Shanghai as an example. Relevant supervision departments surely apologized to residents， claiming they are sorry for the scandal. On the other hand， the large investigation team con- cluded that “most steamed pastries like steamed buns produced by companies in Shanghai are safe to eat; the illegal use of dye by Shanghai Shenglu Food Company was merely an individual case.” “As not all companies are honest or well managed， there is still risk of illegal production by a few businesses. The supervision department will continue to oversee these manufacturers strictly.” It sounds as if the hidden danger in food safety is due to the lack of self-discipline on the part of producers and has nothing to do with the supervision departments; and instead the immediate action and humble apology to the public by the regulatory authorities should be applauded.Administration and supervision departments acted in the same way during the time of the still shocking Clenbuterol， (known in China simply as “l(fā)ean meat powder”) laced pork incident. After media aired a report detailing the contaminated pork， relevant supervision departments in Henan province attached great importance to the case and reacted immediately. By investigation they found commodity hogs fed with Clenbuterol mainly in four counties or cities around Jiyuan city， Henan province. Strangely the production sites of clenbuterol-tainted pork disclosed by media are the same four counties or cities. It seems as if media run into the inside stories of food safety only by luck; and even if the food safety scandal is true in Henan， food safety issues are not common in China.People may discover from the food safety incidents in recent years that the recurring problems are tightly related to the negligence， dereliction of duties， cover-up and secret protection of relative administration leaders， which conforms to “negligence or misconduct”behaviors ruled by the Food Safety Law. For example， some supervision personnel in the clenbuterol-tainted pork incident and tainted steamed buns incident have been used to “allowing producers to send in samples for test”and “examining samples in their offices”.Some civil servants of basic level from supervision departments of Shandong and Zhejiang told reporters that office expenses， salaries and benefits of some local supervision departments rely on fines. Due to the involved economic interests， fines are levied in order to increase income， rather than to safeguard food safety. Illegal producers and distributors can continue their businesses as long as they pay supervision departments for “protection”. At the same time， supervision departments don’t want to endanger the businesses of producers and distributors by imposing heavy fines. To ensure they can continue to profit from fines， they lower fines to a certain degree. That is to say the supervision departments and illegal companies have become related interested parties to some extent.A regulator of basic level in Yangpu District， Shanghai told reporters in an interview that sometimes the inspectors were ordered by superiors to give favor to some food companies， which are either big taxpayers or relate to some investment projects of leaders. They dare not report these companies.Recently some media report that over 99.8 percent of exported food has been up to standard， while the rate for products aimed at the domestic marked has been lower than 90 percent. Many experts pointed out that the recurrence of food safety in China incidents revealed that some food standards are pretty low. In response， officials from the Ministry of Health countered that it is not true that first-class food is exported and second-rate food is consumed domestically. “Food safety standards vary among countries， but they are established on scientific basis.”Tang Xianxing， a professor at the Department of Public Administration， School of International Relations and Public Affairs affiliated to Fudan University， indicated in an interview that the prospect of food safety in China is not promising against the backdrop that negligent supervision departments are only subject to light punishment.Appealing for social supervision on food safetyFood safety incidents emerged time and again without being effective resolved. Faced with the difficult situation， many scholars hold that as food safety involves many interests and parties， it can’t be guaranteed by work- ing on only one aspect; instead the government needs to develop a comprehensive concept of governing by the whole society， which means joint governance by the government， as well as businesses， non-government organizations， communities， through legal， market， consultation， administration and other means in the modern society with diversified interests and parties. Therefore， to crack down on tainted eats， we should not only restraint the power of producers， watchdogs， distributors etc and make relevant laws， but also invite social forces to participate in the supervision of food safety. We should pay more attention to the development to the latter aspect.The problem of over-departments in the field of supervision has been in existence for long. These disparate departments share oversight without cooperation， and shift responsibility onto each other in time of scandals. Mr. Tang thinks the responsibilities and functions of various departments must be defined clearly in law， so be the procedure of determining accountability. Then a cross-department supervision organ may be established to coordinate and regulate food safety along the chain and eliminate the possibility of shirking responsibility and shifting the blame onto others by departments. In particular， negligence and misconduct of supervision departments shall be defined clearly. In case of major food safety incident， personnel in charge should be punished. We can draw lessons from some western countries， where relevant officials， ranging from the Minster of Health to the persons in charge with supervision departments， must be held responsible for major food safety incidents and step down.Li Shuguang， Director of Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene， School of Public Health， Fudan Uviversity believed that although supervision departments were definitely responsible for the food safety sandals， it’s also true that China did not have enough enforcement agents. For example， there are thousands of firms in Shanghai with only tens of food inspectors for each district. Therefore， food safety cannot be assured by regulation， but rather by the self-restraint of food companies to a larger extent. This calls for severe punishment of the law on wayward food companies， which would be the“sword of Damocles” on the head of producers. In the same manner legislation should contain punishment on major food distributors like supermarkets for their illegal acts. It was learnt that in time of serious food safety incidents in the American history， the United States government successfully responded by imposing harsh punishment.Government’s capacity is limited in the complicated modern society. Therefore the government should welcome and promote the involvement of non-government sectors in the settlement of food safety problems and design relevant system to facilitate their participation.Tang Xianxing deems that， to fight against the illegal use of additives in food， industry associations should be supported to make industry standards and regulate the selfrestraint of companies. It’s a pity， however， that by far the industry associations have been making limited contributions. Besides， the role played by news media in food safety supervision should be paid great attention to. Nowadays governing by media has been dubbed as “media-governance”. Media agencies can cooperate with food safety research institutes in universities and timely publish information on food safety released by authoritative research institutes so as to place pressure on supervision departments to improve their work.However， Xiong Yihan， a young political scientist from Fudan University， regards that currently most nongovernmental organizations in China are engaged in environmental protection， poverty alleviation， or education. What’s more， supervision on food safety is a key function of administration departments and involves many interests. Therefore relevant departments are probably unwilling to cooperate with civil society organizations.
