March 15th is World Consumer Rights Day, which was established by the International Consumers Union in 1983. Its purpose is to expand the promotion of consumer rights protection and to protect consumer rights to a greater extent internationally. Every March 15th, CCTV exposes typical cases of consumer rights violations from the past year. Over the past 10 years of CCTV's 3.15 Gala, the field with the most exposed cases has been food safety. From the shocking melamine milk powder and plasticizer pearl milk tea of years past, to recent issues like 'aged pickled cabbage' and Yuzhou rice noodles, irregularities in the food safety industry have been commonplace. As the saying goes, 'food is the paramount necessity of the people.' The safety of food and food-related products is the most basic requirement of citizens' lives and an important component of national public security. To genuinely ensure that citizens 'eat with confidence,' the state has imposed strict obligations on food producers and operators through newly revised laws such as the Food Safety Law and Consumer Rights Protection Law, as well as related systems such as punitive damages. At the same time, with the improvement of residents' awareness of the rule of law, food safety concepts such as 'three-no products,' 'bulk food,' and 'tenfold compensation' have gradually become familiar to the public. To welcome the arrival of the 315 Consumer Rights Day and cultivate residents' good habits of seeking legal solutions when encountering problems, this article summarizes the relevant regulations concerning food safety disputes that residents may face.

I. When Do You Need Compensation?--Food Safety Standards

According to the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Law, where food that does not comply with food safety standards is produced, or where food that does not comply with food safety standards is knowingly operated, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, consumers may also demand that the producer or operator pay compensation in an amount ten times the price paid or three times the loss. Therefore, food safety standards are the key to food safety disputes. Although there are currently numerous specific food safety standards, the prohibitions enumerated in Article 34 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China can be used as a reference:

The production and operation of the following foods, food additives, and food-related products are prohibited:

(1) Foods produced using non-food raw materials, or foods to which chemicals other than food additives and other substances that may harm human health have been added, or foods produced using recycled foods as raw materials;

(2) Foods, food additives, and food-related products with pathogenic microorganisms, pesticide residues, veterinary drug residues, biological toxins, heavy metals, and other polluting substances, as well as other substances harmful to human health, exceeding the limits prescribed by food safety standards;

(3) Foods and food additives produced using food raw materials or food additives beyond their expiration date;

(4) Foods using food additives beyond the scope or exceeding the limits;

(5) Main and supplementary foods exclusively for infants and other specific populations whose nutritional components do not comply with food safety standards;

(6) Foods and food additives that are spoiled, rancid, moldy, infested, contaminated, mixed with foreign objects, adulterated, or have abnormal sensory properties;

(7) Meat and meat products of poultry, livestock, or wild animals that have died from illness or poisoning, or whose cause of death is unknown;

(8) Meat that has not been inspected as required or is non-compliant with inspection, or meat products that have not been inspected or are non-compliant with inspection;

(9) Foods and food additives contaminated by packaging materials, containers, or transportation tools;

(10) Foods and food additives with false production dates, shelf life, or beyond their expiration date;

(11) Pre-packaged foods and food additives without labels;

(12) Foods that are explicitly prohibited from production and operation by the state for purposes such as disease prevention;

(13) Other foods, food additives, and food-related products that do not comply with laws, regulations, or food safety standards.

According to the provisions of the Food Safety Law above, in addition to the most basic requirements such as hygiene and shelf life, food safety standards also include relevant content on food additives, food packaging, and special foods. Among them, there are numerous specific safety standards for various types of foods, and there are conflicts and overlaps between different standards. Therefore, in practice, there may be disputes regarding the determination of 'food that does not comply with food safety standards.' However, there is usually no controversy regarding standards that are easy to determine, such as food exceeding the shelf life or packaging labels lacking necessary information. If consumers defend their rights based on these, merchants usually need to bear corresponding liability for compensation.

Case Explanation: (2021)Hu 0120 Min Chu No. 13930

In April 2021, Mr. Deng purchased 8 Fuding white tea compressed Shoumei tea cakes at a certain hotel in Shanghai, with a total payment of 6,224 yuan. The outer packaging of the tea cakes was labeled with information such as product name and type, but without the producer's name, address, contact information, or production license number. Mr. Deng believed that the hotel's sale of tea cakes without labeling necessary information such as the producer's name and address was illegal and should bear tenfold punitive compensation liability to him. The hotel argued that the tea cakes belonged to agricultural products self-produced and self-sold from villagers' farm gardens, not pre-packaged products, and therefore did not need to include relevant information on the packaging. The two parties failed to reach a negotiation, so they filed a lawsuit with the court.

The court held: According to the definitions of primary agricultural product processing and pre-packaged foods, the tea cakes in question are compressed Shoumei, which falls under compressed tea. Moreover, their production requires specific processes such as sorting, blending, steaming and pressing forming, and drying, which are clearly different from simple initial tea processing. Additionally, the products have been packaged and have net content labels. Therefore, the tea cakes should be classified as pre-packaged foods rather than agricultural products. According to the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, pre-packaged food packaging labels should indicate the producer's name, address, contact information, production license number, and other information, and shall not contain false content. Upon examination, the product's label has neither the producer's name, address, contact information, nor the production license number. Moreover, the indicated release date of the execution standard is July 2015, while the indicated production date is September 2012, which is a clear contradiction. Therefore, this court legally determines that the product in question does not comply with China's food safety standards. As the seller of the product in question, the hotel sold products that do not comply with food safety standards. Therefore, Mr. Deng has the right to demand tenfold compensation based on the purchase price.

Lawyer's Interpretation:

Pre-packaged foods refer to foods that are pre-packaged in fixed quantities or made in packaging materials and containers, including pre-packaged foods with fixed quantities and foods that are pre-made in packaging materials and containers and have uniform quality or volume markings within certain quantity limits. According to the above definition, in addition to bulk food, freshly made foods, and edible agricultural products, most foods sold on the market are pre-packaged foods. For such products, the packaging should carry labels indicating information such as production date, shelf life, and producer. If the above necessary information is lacking, it constitutes 'non-compliance with food safety standards.' When consumers purchase such products, regardless of whether they have actually used them or suffered physical damage, they have the right to demand compensation from the producer or operator.

II. How Much Compensation Is Needed?--Food Safety Punitive Compensation

When it comes to compensation in the field of food safety, people may think of the familiar formulas 'refund plus threefold compensation' and 'refund plus tenfold compensation.' Among them, 'refund plus threefold compensation' refers to the provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China, while 'refund plus tenfold compensation' refers to the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. Since food is a special commodity, and the compensation standard under the Food Safety Law is higher than that under the Consumer Rights Protection Law, 'refund plus tenfold compensation' rather than 'refund plus threefold compensation' is usually applied in food disputes.

Legal Provision: According to the second paragraph of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China: Where food that does not comply with food safety standards is produced, or where food that does not comply with food safety standards is knowingly operated, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, consumers may also demand that the producer or operator pay compensation in an amount ten times the price paid or three times the loss; where the increased compensation amount is less than 1,000 yuan, it shall be 1,000 yuan.

Case Explanation: Zheng v. A Children's Food Company Network Shopping Contract Dispute (Published in the People's Court Daily on December 9, 2020, Typical Cases of Food Safety Civil Disputes)

On October 20, 2015, Zheng purchased a box of jelly from an online store of a children's food company. Later, when Zheng was eating, he found a foreign object in one of the jellies (Note: the jelly was unopened). Upon examination, he found the foreign object to be a spider. The jelly was also produced by the children's food company. The two parties failed to negotiate, and Zheng filed a lawsuit requesting the children's food company to refund the payment and pay compensation of 1,000 yuan.

The court held that consumers' legitimate rights and interests are protected by law. The jelly purchased by Zheng from the defendant's online store and produced by the defendant was found during consumption to have a spider-like foreign object in one of the jellies. According to the provisions of '3.2 Sensory Requirements State: no foreign objects visible to normal vision' in GB19299-2015 National Food Safety Standard - Jelly, the jelly in question is a food that does not comply with food safety standards. According to the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, where food that does not comply with food safety standards is produced, or where food that does not comply with food safety standards is knowingly operated, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, consumers may also demand that the producer or operator pay compensation in an amount ten times the price paid or three times the loss; where the increased compensation amount is less than 1,000 yuan, it shall be 1,000 yuan. However, this excludes cases where the food's label or instructions have defects that do not affect food safety and will not mislead consumers. In this case, although Zheng did not eat the jelly with the foreign object and did not submit evidence proving that the food caused him physical damage, the punitive compensation stipulated in the Food Safety Law does not require consumers' personal rights and interests to have suffered damage as a prerequisite. Therefore, Zheng's request for the defendant to refund the payment and pay compensation of 1,000 yuan has a legal basis and should be supported. The court thus ruled that the children's food company should refund Zheng the payment and pay compensation of 1,000 yuan.

Lawyer's Interpretation:

Where food does not comply with food safety standards, and consumers claim that the producer or operator bears punitive compensation liability pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, if the producer or operator defends on the grounds that no personal injury has been caused to the consumer, the people's court shall not support such defense, and the consumer has the right to demand compensation from the producer or operator.

III. Who Should Be Claimed Against?--Subjects Liable for Punitive Compensation

According to the second paragraph of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, where food that does not comply with food safety standards is produced, or where food that does not comply with food safety standards is knowingly operated, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, consumers may also demand that the producer or operator pay compensation in an amount ten times the price paid or three times the loss. Therefore, punitive compensation applies the principle of no-fault liability to food producers, while the principle of fault liability applies to operators. In other words, for food producers, as long as they produce food that does not comply with safety standards, they should bear the legal liability for punitive compensation regardless of whether they are at fault. For food operators, punitive compensation liability only applies when they subjectively 'knowingly' operate food that does not comply with food safety standards. In judicial practice, how to prove that the operator has 'knowingly' acted is often the difficulty in food safety disputes.

Case Explanation: (2016)Yu 0107 Min Chu Zi No. 10155

In 2015, Mr. Liu purchased 20 bags of a certain brand of pistachios at a department store. According to the product packaging label, its fat content was19.7 grams/100g. Subsequently, Liu sent the 20 bags to a testing institution for testing, and the results showed that the batch of products had a fat content of more than40 grams per100g. Based on this, Liu believed that the department store sold pre-packaged food that did not correctly indicate the ingredients, violating food safety standards, and requested the department store to pay tenfold compensation. The department store argued that it had no way of knowing that the goods provided by the manufacturer did not match the packaging labels and did not fall under 'knowingly operating food that does not comply with food safety standards.' The two parties failed to reach a negotiation and thus filed a lawsuit with the court.

The court held: Liu purchased pistachios at the department store, and the two parties legally formed a sales contract relationship. As the department store's products were found through testing to have excessive fat content, violating the national food safety standard 'General Rules for Nutrition Labels of Pre-packaged Foods,' they constitute food that does not comply with food safety standards. However, the above facts clearly do not fall under circumstances that the department store knows or should have known. Therefore, the department store did not sell the product knowing it did not comply with food safety standards, and it does not meet the statutory elements for bearing tenfold purchase price punitive compensation as a seller.

Lawyer's Interpretation:

Operators have an obligation to review the food they operate. In judicial practice, if an operator fails to fulfill the corresponding goods inspection obligation or sells food that does not comply with food safety standards through positive actions, it is often determined that the operator has 'knowingly' acted. The above actions and omissions typically manifest as: continuing to sell food after its indicated shelf life has passed; being unable to provide a legitimate source of purchase for the sold food; purchasing at an obviously abnormally low price without reasonable cause; failing to fulfill the goods inspection obligation as required by law; falsely labeling or altering food production dates or batch numbers; transferring, concealing, or illegally destroying food purchase and sales records; or intentionally providing false information.

Therefore, in disputes where food does not comply with food safety standards, operators do not always need to bear tenfold purchase price punitive compensation to consumers. When defending their rights, consumers should also reasonably choose the object of their rights defense based on the facts of the case and legal provisions.