A Study On The Food Regulatory Malfeasance

Food safety has been a problem which not only concerns the national economy and thepeople’s livelihood, but also the stability of the society. The food safety problem happenedfrequently. One of the important reason is the poor regulation of the government. In the year2011,our government carried out Criminal Law Amendment(H) which put crimes of foodregulatory malfeasance into the Criminal Law individually. Has far-reaching significance inthe regulation of food safety crimes.About the object on the food regulatory malfeasance，Criminal Law scholars say there isa controversy between single object, the object of double. From the nature of the foodregulatory malfeasance, the choreography style of Chinese Criminal Law, the severity of thecurrent sentencing provisions, crime and abuse of power, dereliction of duty and other pointof view of the relevance, the object of the food regulatory malfeasance recognized as anational authority on food safety regulatory activities normally more reasonable.Implementation of food regulatory malfeasance behavior has two kinds of abuse anddereliction of duty, focused on the terms of abuse of power, malpractice is not as focused onthe way;"major food safety incidents,""other serious consequences," yet there are clearstandards and definitions and explanations, so that the level of food safety incidents can notbe clearly defined boundaries. The body of food regulatory is malfeasance staff of stateorgans, criteria for national government workers are engaged in official business. Subjectiveaspects of food regulatory malfeasance, subjective aspects of food regulatory malfeasance, thetype of food regulation in the form of abuse is willful malfeasance, the main approach isindirect intentional; the form of regulatory negligence type of food was negligent derelictionof duty.Lapping of legal provisions exist between food regulatory malfeasance and abuse ofpower and dereliction of duty crimes, special law should apply to the superior generalprinciples of law; state personnel both guilty of dereliction of duty have received foodregulatory bribery, handled in accordance with graft; the presence of competing relationship with indulgence food regulatory malfeasance crime of manufacturing and selling shoddygoods crime, but its competing regulatory relations mainly in the field of food.Many inadequacies food regulatory malfeasance exists in legislation. Sin is not clearform, do not distinguish between intentional and negligent, without considering the harmcaused by the size of the result and with one count of general finds, the crime should beclassified as "food regulatory abuse crimes" and "food regulatory dereliction of duty" twocounts, points of the legislation, to set a different legal punishment; main crime was toonarrow, subject of unit crime unspecified, units should be regulated as a main food ofdereliction of duty and set the appropriate conviction and sentencing range conditions; narrowrange of penalties, type of food should be regulated in the abuse of power and dereliction ofduty in perilous provisions carefully; single kinds of punishment, it should be the basis of anadditional punishment to the provisions in criminal fines and imprisonment on detention.