A Study Of Punitive Damages In The Food Safety Act

Food safety concerns everyone's life and health,and it has always been a sensitive social issue that the public pays close attention to.In the process of dealing with food safety issues,the application of punitive compensation clauses has been a hot and difficult point of concern.Whether in theory or in practice,punitive compensation provisions in the field of food safety law still need to be improved and perfected.At present,people's courts throughout China are widely used to solve the problem of food labeling when applying the punitive compensation provisions of the Food Safety Law.Many problems and disputes have also emerged in the application of the law,exposing the punitive nature of the Food Safety Law of China.There are many loopholes in the legislation and implementation of compensation.The scope of "food safety standards" is too broad,the subjective requirements of producers and operators are not clear,and the determination of punitive damages at a fixed multiple is too rigid.These problems have led to improper standards in judges' trials,and lack of examination and verification of specific facts of individual cases distinguish.Based on the legislative purpose of punitive damages,this article analyzes and considers the perfect measures of the punitive damages system of the Food Safety Law in light of the functional value of the punitive damages system introduced in China and the problems and disputes in the process of law application.Illegal acts,subjective elements,and the amount of compensation are the three institutional elements of punitive compensation.They are sorted out,questions are raised,and suggestions are given.This article is divided into four chapters,the main contents are as follows:The first chapter summarizes the legislation of punitive damages in China,and analyzes the problems of punitive damages in the Food Safety Law.Theoretically reviewed the legislative history of punitive damages in our country,summarized their functional value,and raised the status quo of related legislation and judicial practice of punitive damages in the Food Safety Law.The next three chapters,based on the combination of legislative purpose and judicial practice,sort out the three institutional elements of punitive compensation: illegal acts,subjective elements,and the amount of compensation,and correspondingly ask three questions.People's subjective requirements are not clear and the amount of punitive damages is unreasonable.Each chapter focuses on the punitive compensation system in the United States and Chinese Taiwan,and discusses specific suggestions and measures to solve the above problems.First,the judgment of illegal behavior is unreasonable.An analysis of the proviso of paragraph 148,paragraph 2 shows that the meanings of "food safety standards" and "food safety" are not the same.Foods that do not meet food safety standards may not affect food safety.Food pages are not necessarily guaranteed to be safe.Based on this,in judicial practice,there is also a different understanding of the meaning of "food safety standards",and the certification of whether production and business operations meet food safety standards is also quite confusing.This article believes that the judgment of illegal behavior should be centered on "food safety",and replace the "food safety standards" with the essential elements of "food safety".Behaviors that cause serious damage to health should be considered as affecting food safety,and punitive should be applied to them Compensation.The judge shall make a substantive judgment in combination with formal judgments.When determining whether a food has “food safety problems”,the judge may refer to “food safety standards”,damage results,etc.,and determine whether it is substantially consistent with food safety.Secondly,the subjective requirements of the responsible person are not clear.The lack of producers' subjective elements makes producers overburdened.Disregarding the subjective status of the responsible person is not in line with the functional characteristics of punitive damages for punishing and deterring malicious infringers.Therefore,punitive damages should only be applied to the person responsible if the wrongdoing was committed through subjective fault.The requirements for the subjective status of the operators in the clauses are "knowingly",but the "knowingly" identification and certification standards are difficult to grasp,and the standards are not uniform in judicial application.The subjective requirements of producers should be increased to avoid excessive penalties in the case of subjective fault or no fault.Replace "knowingly" with "intentional" and include "major negligence" as a subjective element in the application of punitive damages.Finally,the amount of punitive damages is unreasonably determined.It is difficult to achieve tangible fairness in punitive damages in a fixed amount model,and the judge lacks discretion."Price" is the base of infringement in the contract area,and it is unscientific to continue to use "price" as the base for compensation in the area of infringement.It is also inconsistent with the Consumer Protection Law and the Tort Liability Law.Judicial practice lacks relevant provisions to determine the specific amount of punitive damages,and most or all models adopted by judges lack flexibility.The punitive damages should be determined at "less than three times the loss",which is conducive to ensuring the legal uniformity of the ruling and also allows the judge to have discretion.Explicitly set out the consideration factors for the amount of punitive damages,provide the corresponding basis for the referee,and adapt the legal liability to illegal acts.