Behind the "Oolong" in food testing: How to break the broken re-inspection?
The "Oolong Gate" of food inspection that failed the initial inspection and passed the re-inspection has become the template interpretation process of the enterprises involved. Contradictory conclusions among food testing institutions are also challenging consumers' confidence in food safety.
The reporter found out that during the three years of 20 12, there were seven "Oolong Gate" in the food industry with contradictory results of initial inspection and re-inspection, such as the sodium thiocyanate incident in Huishan dairy industry and the "Viagra Gate" in Hainan Coconut Island, all of which were punished or warned after the initial inspection, but the enterprises quickly produced re-inspection reports to prove their innocence, which caused an uproar in the industry.
Behind the endless "Oolong Gate", there are many questions about the application time of re-inspection, the qualification of re-inspection institutions and the effectiveness of re-inspection results.
Experts pointed out that most enterprises take samples by themselves and entrust a third-party agency to test the re-inspection conclusion, which is illegal and does not have the legal effect of overturning the initial inspection conclusion. For the contradiction between the procedures and conclusions of the initial inspection and re-inspection, the insiders suggest that the bottom-up re-inspection controlled by AB and the joint participation of the initial inspection and re-inspection institutions can be adopted to ensure the fairness and neutrality of the food inspection results.
Question 1
How long does it take to apply for a review?
The time limit is only five days, and many companies said that they did not receive the notice.
The Beijing News reporter found that among the seven "Oolong" incidents, only three companies claimed to have received the initial inspection notice, and all three companies said that they had not received the notice, which led to the re-inspection time exceeding. 1 company did not clearly inform.
2065438+July 2005, the State Food and Drug Administration of the United States issued a notice on the illegal addition of 69 kinds of health wine concoctions. Among them, the deer turtle wine of Hainan Coconut Island Group is suspected of illegally adding tadalafil, thioiditenafil, vardenafil and hongdinafil. According to the sampling data, in October/11month of 2004, this was a spot check of Hainan Coconut Island Guilu Liquor (batch number 20 13 1024) by Mianyang American Food and Drug Administration in Jiefang Street Mutual Supermarket.
"So far, the company has not received the notice from Mianyang Food and Drug Administration, which makes it impossible for the company to confirm the samples and apply for re-inspection within a limited time." A person from the Secretary-General's Office of Hainan Coconut Island told the Beijing News that it was not until March this year that 1 1 received the notice of the inspection results from the mutual supermarket dealers. On March/0/2, Kloc submitted a statement to Mianyang US Food and Drug Administration through the distributor, which clearly stated that "apply for confirmation of the samples involved, and then conduct re-inspection after confirmation", but the other party refused to allow it on the grounds that time had passed.
According to the Administrative Measures for Sampling Inspection of Food Safety issued by the US Food and Drug Administration, food producers and operators can submit a written re-inspection application within 5 working days from the date of receiving the inspection conclusion that the sampling inspection of food safety supervision is unqualified. The re-inspection institution shall take samples from the initial inspection institution within 3 working days, and make a re-inspection conclusion within 10 working days from the date of receiving the backup samples. "The application for re-inspection is overdue, and the re-inspection backup sample exceeds the shelf life". , re-inspection is not allowed.
There is a five-day time window for enterprises to apply for re-inspection from the time they receive the unqualified initial inspection to the re-inspection. A local food and drug supervisor said that the results of unqualified sampling will be reported at different levels and finally notified in a unified manner, which also leaves a time limit for enterprises to apply for re-inspection.
However, the Beijing News reporter noted that most of the enterprises involved claimed that they did not receive the notice directly, but were transferred from local supermarkets and distributors. In the recent sodium thiocyanate incident, Huishan Dairy pointed out that there were four major problems in the US Food and Drug Administration in Hebei Province, such as not notifying the enterprise and violating the testing procedures, which made Huishan unable to apply for re-inspection.
However, a senior person who has participated in the law enforcement sampling inspection of the Food and Drug Administration for many times in Shanghai said that if unqualified products are sampled, they will generally directly inform the sampled units, production units and sampling execution supervision units.
Regarding the statement that many manufacturers have not received the notice, this person thinks that "there is no case that the production unit has not received the notice or received it very late because the organization has not sent the notice. The biggest reason is the poor information exchange within the enterprise. We have also contacted enterprises before and found that many production enterprises have too many problems themselves, such as chaotic internal management. "
Liu Junhai, a professor at the Law School of Renmin University of China, said that the sampled parties in supermarkets, distributors and other circulation links also have the obligation and responsibility to inform the manufacturers. "The regulatory authorities should publicize it online as soon as possible and fulfill the responsibility of jointly informing producers and operators."
Question 2
Who will reinspect?
It is illegal for enterprises to conduct self-sampling and re-inspection.
China's current laws and regulations clarify the procedures for applying for re-inspection and selecting re-inspection institutions.
The Regulations on the Implementation of the Food Safety Law and the Code for Food Safety Supervision, Sampling and Risk Monitoring point out that food producers and operators who have objections can choose a re-inspection institution from the published list of food re-inspection institutions and submit a written re-inspection application within 5 working days after receiving the conclusion that the sampling is unqualified. The re-inspection conclusion is the final inspection conclusion.
In other words, the enterprise must go to the food re-inspection institution designated by the state for re-inspection. The Beijing News reporter noted that from 20 1 1 to 20 13, CNCA issued two batches of food re-inspection institutions, totaling 136, including the National Safety Risk Assessment Center, China Food and Drug Inspection Institute, National Food Quality and Safety Supervision and Inspection Center, as well as local provincial quality supervision and inspection institutes and entry-exit inspection and quarantine centers.
However, in the previous "Oolong Gate" incidents, many enterprises involved in the case did not strictly implement this regulation in terms of sample submission and re-inspection time, and the re-inspection institutions were not all on the above list.
20 13 Shandong Fujiao was sampled by Jiujiang Drug Inspection Institute, Jiangxi Province, and found that the water-soluble substances exceeded the standard. Later, Jiangxi Institute for Drug Control was entrusted to re-examine and reached a qualified conclusion, but after a year, it took samples by itself.
August 20 15, Hainan Coconut Island Guilu Liquor was suspected of illegally adding Viagra, and entrusted Hainan Food Testing Center, Sichuan Food and Drug Inspection Institute, SGS Tongbiao Guangzhou Branch and Guangzhou Jinyu Medical Inspection Center Co., Ltd. to conduct self-inspection. However, the latter two institutions are not listed.
2065438+September 2005, Huishan Dairy was announced that sodium thiocyanate exceeded the standard, and entrusted Shenyang Food and Drug Inspection Institute and Beijing Puni for re-inspection. However, other batches of products are submitted for inspection, and the latter is not a catalog organization.
"At present, most of the so-called re-inspections are qualified and there are problems in procedures." Liu Qingjun, a researcher at the Beijing Physical and Chemical Analysis and Testing Center, said that only by strictly implementing the re-inspection procedure and ensuring the consistency of the samples detected in the initial inspection and re-inspection can the errors caused by the inspection process be reduced and the neutrality and objectivity be ensured. "It can't be said that enterprises choose their own samples, and institutions choose their own. A qualified product is considered qualified after re-inspection."
Question 3
What kind of review results are really effective?
It is necessary to retrieve the original sealed sample.
The contradictory conclusion that the initial inspection is unqualified and the re-inspection is qualified has become the only explanation of the enterprises involved to the public. But this set is not applicable everywhere-Shandong Fujiao Group made a mistake.
From 20 13, Shandong Fujiao Group filed a complaint and twice brought Jiujiang US Food and Drug Administration to court. On the grounds that it passed the re-inspection, it was considered that there was insufficient evidence of administrative punishment on Fujiao during the sampling inspection of 20 12.
According to the data, in 20 12 years, Jiujiang Institute for Drug Control sampled Shandong Fujiao Ejiao sold by Jiujiang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and found that its properties did not meet the requirements, and the water-insoluble matter reached 2.6%. Accordingly, Jiujiang US Food and Drug Administration made a penalty, confiscated 42,000 yuan of illegal income from selling inferior drugs, and imposed a fine of 84,630 yuan twice. After paying the fine, Jiujiang Pharmaceutical Company filed a lawsuit on 20 13, demanding that Shandong Fujiao be liable for compensation.
The Beijing News reporter saw from the court judgment that Fujiao Group submitted the inspection reports made by Jinan Institute for Drug Control and Jiangxi Institute for Drug Control, showing that the same batch of Ejiao meets the requirements. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Jiujiang believes that the samples tested in the two inspection reports of Fujiao were not retained by the initial inspection agency, nor did they apply for re-inspection according to legal procedures, but were entrusted to Jiangxi Food and Drug Administration for inspection one year later.
In the end, the final judgment of the court held that the results of the entrusted inspection by Fujiao Group did not have the effect of overturning the results of the initial inspection. It is worth noting that the judgment specifically pointed out that the samples tested twice by Fujiao Group were not the samples after inspection by Jiujiang Food and Drug Administration. "Therefore, the results of the two tests are not binding on this case."
"Enterprises have the right to re-examine, but legal procedures must be strictly implemented." Liu Qingyi told the Beijing News reporter that according to the regulations, when an enterprise initiates an application for re-examination, it can designate a qualified third-party testing institution or choose from the list of re-examination institutions published by the state, and the original initial inspection institution will send the sealed sample for inspection. "The sample must be sealed by the original inspection, and the re-inspection institution must have corresponding qualifications, which are two conditions for the formal re-inspection procedure."
debate
Initial inspection and re-inspection
There are unequal responsibilities in the institutions of food initial inspection and re-inspection.
"The conclusions of the initial food inspection and re-inspection are inconsistent, and' Oolong' frequently appears, which has risen to the level of testing the credibility of testing institutions." Liu Junhai, a professor at the Law School of Renmin University of China, said that the review procedure "should avoid being influenced by human factors and administrative intervention".
The frequent contradiction between the initial inspection and re-inspection of food has also caused introspection within the regulatory authorities-if the re-inspection conclusion is wrong, how to protect the rights and interests of the initial inspection institutions?
According to the data, from 2065438 to March 2002, the Industrial and Commercial Bureau of Zhangjiagang Bonded Area entrusted Kunshan Product Quality Testing Center in the circulation field to conduct sampling inspection on red wine and white wine. The initial inspection showed that the alcohol content of Tang Sheng Luzhou-flavor liquor distributed by Yijiale did not meet the label requirements.
After that, Yijiale Company submitted a re-inspection to the Bonded Area Administration for Industry and Commerce, and a quality inspection office in Nanjing showed that the alcohol content of the re-inspection sample was qualified. However, the initial inspection agency had doubts about the conclusion of the re-inspection and conducted an independent re-inspection, but its alcohol content was still unqualified.
In this regard, the Industrial and Commercial Bureau of Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone once issued the "Problems and Countermeasures of the Current Food Re-inspection Procedure from a Case of Unqualified Food Re-inspection" in official website, pointing out that the initial inspection agency can only approve the re-inspection conclusion, but can not apply for re-inspection, unless an administrative lawsuit is filed against the re-inspection agency, the cost of rights protection is too high.
"The rights and obligations of the initial inspection agency and the re-inspection agency are not equal. This is the biggest problem at present, and it is also the place where the re-inspection procedure needs to be further improved." Liu Qingzan told the Beijing News reporter that in the sampling inspection entrusted by the regulatory authorities, the initial inspection institutions often bear greater risks and responsibilities. "When the initial inspection agency makes the unqualified report, it will inevitably face a series of legal risks such as corporate prosecution. The re-inspection agency does not need to consider such a problem. Even if the completely opposite result is obtained, it is equivalent to the final conclusion and completely denies the sampling results of the initial inspection agency. "
Liu Junhai believes that the initial inspection institutions are oriented to the regulatory authorities and consumers, and the re-inspection institutions are oriented to enterprises. "In the face of the negative principle of the re-inspection agency, the initial inspection agency has become a vulnerable group."
Foreign situation
Foreign food testing has also made an "oolong"
The "Oolong Gate" of food testing is not only frequently staged in China, but also abroad.
In 20 13, Fonterra Group of New Zealand announced the detection of Botox in concentrated whey protein powder, which affected international food giants such as Danone, Wahaha, Coca-Cola and Abbott.
However, on August 28th, 20 13, the Ministry of Primary Industries of New Zealand suddenly announced that further tests confirmed that the raw materials produced by Fonterra did not contain Botox. "This is an embarrassing thing for New Zealand as a whole." Since Fonterra's original designated testing agency is a subordinate department of the New Zealand government, the New Zealand Trade Minister is "very uncomfortable" with this false testing. The New Zealand government subsequently issued an investigation report on the Oolong incident, pointing out that Fonterra and the New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries had many problems in handling it.
This detection error has caused huge losses to Fonterra Group and its client enterprises. France's Danone sued Fonterra in the New Zealand High Court in June, 200014, claiming that the Oolong incident caused huge losses to Danone's New Zealand company, and demanded that Fonterra compensate NZ $654.38 billion (about US$ 765.438 billion). However, the New Zealand High Court indicated that it did not support Danone's lawsuit, and asked the enterprise to participate in arbitration in February 2065438+2006.
The Beijing News reporter inquired that in Europe and America, many hidden dangers and early warnings of food were first discovered by third-party organizations. These testing institutions are independent of the government and are bound by law. If the problem is found, it will face re-examination and legal sanctions.
For example, the United States directly introduces an independent third-party audit and testing mechanism, and hands over routine testing to its recognized certification bodies or independent testing centers and laboratories in various States. Third-party testing institutions must report to the FDA immediately if they find that there is a "significant risk to public health" in the testing audit.
In order to prevent fraud, the law stipulates that food enterprises make false statements to third-party audit institutions or auditors, or third-party audit institutions make false statements to FDA, and can be fined and imprisoned for up to five years.
Solve the way out
To alleviate the contradiction, we can learn from AB-type control re-examination.
In fact, in the newly revised Food Safety Law on June 5438+ 10 this year, the principle of random blind selection was established for the first time, stipulating that food producers and operators who have objections to the inspection results can apply for re-inspection, and the department that accepts the re-inspection application will randomly determine the re-inspection institution from the published list of re-inspection institutions. In other words, as an applicant for re-inspection, an enterprise loses the right to choose a re-inspection institution. Instead, it is randomly selected by the accepting department to further ensure the neutrality of the re-inspection institution.
Jiangsu Industry and Commerce once suggested that AB re-examine in a controlled way and formulate comprehensive regulations. It is suggested that the sampling inspection department can entrust another re-inspection agency for re-inspection on the basis of the re-inspection entrusted by the applicant. If the re-inspection results of the two companies are consistent, it is the final inspection conclusion; If the re-inspection results are inconsistent, the re-inspection agency shall be entrusted for re-inspection, and the re-inspection results shall be taken as the final inspection conclusion. "Although cumbersome, it can effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the three parties and avoid the adverse effects caused by re-inspection mistakes."
"The re-inspection institution must adhere to procedural fairness and avoid black-box operation." Liu Qingjun, a researcher at Beijing Physical and Chemical Analysis and Testing Center, suggested that the initial inspection institutions and re-inspection institutions should disclose the inspection process to each other. If the initial inspection agency thinks that the re-inspection conclusion is in doubt, "an application can be made publicly, and inspectors from both sides can jointly send inspectors to inspect the original sealed samples according to the same set of operating norms and procedures, and then draw inspection conclusions."
I hope I can help you, please adopt it.