Application And Improvement Of Punitive Damages In Our "Food Safety Law"

Our “food safety law” resolves problems about food safety. It constraints foodoperators, in order to protect consumers.“food safety law” has important applicablevalue. In the legal liability system of food safety law, one of the most typicalresponsibility, is the punitive compensation responsibility. To a large extent, thepunitive compensation cracks down on the illegal food operators, it is consistentwith the principle of protecting food safety However, in judicial practice, this legalprovision has appeared quite a few drawbacks. For example, there are conflicts in thelegal system; Punitive damages are difficult to be implemented; The calculationstandard on compensation is too stiff; Procedures are too tedious, and so on.Therefore, to improve “ten times compensation”, we should learn from legislativeexperience in foreign countries, adding more practical factors to our food safetycompensation system. This paper is divided into three parts. To analyze the punitivedamages in “food safety law”, I have read some books about it, and collected somerelative news.The first part analyzes the significance of application of the punitive damages.Punitive damages in “food safety law”, can crack down on counterfeiters and sellers,make up the losses on food consumers, and encourage consumers to safeguard theirrights. Food safety related to people’s life and health. Therefore, we should usepunitive damages. In recent years, food safety cases occur frequently, causing badeffects. If we don’t increase the amount of punitive damages, the deterrent effect oflaw can’t be showed. The punitive damages system, expands traditional frameworkof civil compensation, and focus on protection of vulnerable consumers. Punitivedamages in “food safety law”, is equivalent to10times of food price, it canencourage customers to obtain the compensation. On the basis of “doublecompensation”,“food safety law” increased the damages, so we can betterimplement the food safety responsibility.The second part analyzes the existing problems in application. First of all,punitive damages lack some details, so it is difficult to implement. Secondly,“food safety law” has not regulated details of buying fake. If a food consumer alreadyknows this kind of food is unsafe, but he still buys more, only to obtain the punitivedamages, can this consumer obtain ten times compensation? Can “fake occupation”be support by“food safety law”? The law has not included this phenomenon, so it iseasy to cause disputes. Thirdly, the institutional function of ten times compensationcan not be showed. Consumers can rarely obtain compensation, our law can’tmobilize the enthusiasm of safeguarding legal rights.The third part analyzes how to improve the punitive damages. First of all, weshould set more detailed rules. Secondly, customers who buy fake should also beprotected by punitive damages. This is because food safety cases are special, as longas unsafe food is made and sold, it can harm many people, the potential impact isalso great. Therefore, fake occupation can assist the government, to punish illegalacts, and to alert other food operators. Thirdly, food consumers should get morecompensation, it is in accordance with conception of justice in “food safety law”.