A series of recent incidents - from the discovery of the potential cancer-causing colouring agent Sudan I in KFC products and other foods to the double standards concerning genetically modified ingredients adopted by Kraft Food and Campbell - have pushed the issue of food safety into the spotlight. The Chinese media have been quick to respond to them and the following are excerpts from two articles.

Better supervisory

system needed

An article by Yang Genshen in the Shanghai-based Youth Daily calls for the setting up of a strong and well-developed food safety supervisory mechanism in the wake of the recent incidents.

Actually, Sudan I has been banned in food by the European Union and some other countries since 1995 and a related regulation in 1996 also prohibited its use in China. However, in the years that followed, Chinese food quality supervisory specialists never tested for the dye and we do not even have a reliable means and standard of testing for the material.

When the warning came out, those in charge of relevant trade bodies and experts affirmed that no domestic enterprises produced or used the dye, which, as proved later, was not true. KFC's use of Sudan I was announced by the company itself.

All these have pointed to a weak awareness of food safety in the industry and the primitive supervision and administration of food safety, highlighted by a lack of better food safety laws. The current practice that separates departments responsible for food safety is inefficient and costly.

The recent incidents have reminded us of the lack of laws and the shortfalls in our supervisory system. Only a food safety supervisory system that is serious and well-developed can effectively prevent more harm to consumers.

Legal system

progress important

An article by Huang Jijun in the Oriental Morning Post says that recent incidents have again called attention to how consumers' legitimate rights can be protected.

In the KFC case, the company has agreed that if harm done to the human body has been confirmed scientifically and legally, it will accept due legal obligations and provide remedy to the consumers. However, consumers will find it difficult to advance their case because they do not have receipts to prove they have purchased the products in question. And the current legal system in China denies the possibility that a special organization representing consumers can ask for compensation and then set up a fund to remedy the victims.

This has exposed the shortfalls in China's current legal system to protect consumers' rights. When consumers fall victim to violations, they cannot resort to collective litigation and have to face singlehandedly the producers that are much stronger than they are.

As seen in previous cases, their acts constitute a form of active participation in public affairs and will encourage governments and related departments to work for a more standardized procedure in managing public affairs. These acts also promote the regulation of China's consumer market, which, after these cases, has gradually learnt to respect consumers.

Apart from more individual consumers who resort to the law to claim what should be their rights, the legislative and administrative departments should be aware of consumers' increasing requirement for protection with laws and a legal system that allows organizational litigation in the public interest.

(For more, see "Food dye lessons", page 4 and "Food for thought", page 5)