SOCIAL CO-GOVERNANCE OF FOOD SAFETY: A PERSPECTIVE FROM GOVERNANCE OF CHINA
Wang Weiguo
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. POLICY EXPRESSION OF SOCIAL CO-GOVERNANCE OF FOOD SAFETY
A. From Social Administration to Social Governance
B. Manifestation of Social Co-governance First in Food and Drug Sector
II. FIRST LEGISLATION ON SOCIAL CO-GOVERNANCE OF FOOD SAFETY
A. Process of Including Social Co-governance in the Law
B. Significance of Including Social Co-governance in the Law
C. Special Systems Reflecting the Social Co-governance Principle
D. Essentials for Implementation of the Social Co-governance Principle
III. PARTY REGULATION GUARANTEE FOR THE SOCIAL CO-GOVERNANCE OF FOOD SAFETY
A. Meaning and Positioning of the Party’s Internal Rules
B. Release of Special Rules of the Party
C. Significance of Guarantee by Special Internal Rules of the Party
D. Analysis of the Responsibilities for Promoting Social Co-governance of Food Safety
IV. CONCLUSION
Food safety governance faces not only the common problems of all mankind, but also the specific problems of China. The governance of food safety in China must be based on the construction of China’s national system and national governance system. Food safety governance is an indispensable and important part of the ‘governance of China’ that has created two wonders of rapid economic development and long-term social stability. The ‘governance of China’ is strongly guaranteed by a series of systems. Among them, the most important ones include the policy system led by the Party’s propositions, the national legal system led by the Constitution, and the Party’s internal laws and regulations system led by the Party constitution. On the issue of social co-governance of food safety, the system logic of ‘governance of China’ is clearly embodied. The social co-governance of food safety is an important system transformed from the policies of the Party and the State into legal principles, and is guaranteed by special internal party regulations. The social co-governance of food safety in China is a vivid manifestation of the organic integration of the concept of international social governance and the mass line of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a major change in the concept of food safety governance and a powerful measure to deal with the ‘extremely big’ issue of food safety.
The food safety concept system covers food quantity safety, food quality safety and food nutrition safety. Food quantity safety, the fundamental safety, is the first priority in the governance of China; food quality safety, the hub safety, serves as a major test of governance capability; food nutrition safety, the development safety, is the material guarantee of citizens’ rights to health. The three are progressive, correlated and interactive and have different focuses in different development stages. At present, we take hold of food safety by taking food quantity safety as the basis, food quality safety as the key and food nutrition safety as the goal. This food safety concept is also a redline that runs through the building of healthy China, beautiful China, peaceful China and law-based governance of China. Food safety is an integral part of the building of ‘healthy China’, the important content of the building of ‘beautiful China’, the primary task of the building of ‘peaceful China’ and testing ruler of the building of ‘law-based governance of China’.
The governance of food safety is faced with not only the universal problem of mankind but also the special problem in China. It is an important content of the national governance and must be addressed based on the state system and national governance system of China. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC summed up the notable advantages of the state system and the national governance system of China from 13 perspectives. These notable advantages serve as the fundamental guarantee for the people to create the ‘two wonders’ of rapid economic development and long-term social stability under the Party’s leadership and the system ‘code’ of the ‘governance of China’. Governance of China enables the system that truly works to operate effectively and is the result of the conversion of the system advantage into the governance efficacy. To make the system further matured and further stable is a dynamic process, so is the modernization of governance capacity. Likewise, the governance of food safety goes through a process of continuous exploration and can neither be accomplished in an action nor done once and for all. The process from system to governance is the process of transformation. In another word, a good system can exist in name only if it is not effectively implemented; from another perspective, governance can have a reverse effect on the system. It can test the effect of the system and accelerate the improvement of the system. Governance of food safety is the centralized reflection of the relevant institution and system as well as their executive capacity and a classic miniature of the governance of China.
I. POLICY EXPRESSION OF SOCIAL CO-GOVERNANCE OF FOOD SAFETY
In order to effectively respond to the new situation and actively deal with the new challenges in the economic and social development, the Party and the government have successively put forward a series of policy goals of social construction and made corresponding institutional arrangements, which constitute the new thought about the change of the ‘social governance’ policy in modern China. It is along with this change that social co-governance of food safety emerges.
A. From Social Administration to Social Governance
From the ‘social administration’ nurturing the idea of co-governance to the ‘social governance’ highlighting the idea of governance, relevant policy expressions have experienced seven specific phases.
1. ‘Social Administration’ Nurturing the Ideal of Co-governance. — In 2004, ‘social administration’ was made the important content of the Party’s governance capacity building at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the CPC. The Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC on Strengthening the Party’s Governance Capacity Building passed at the Plenary Session made it imperative to ‘strengthen social construction and administration, boost the innovation in social administration system, conduct in-depth research on the law of social administration, improve social administration system, policies and regulations, integrate social administration resources, establish and refine the social administration pattern of leadership by the Party committee, government in charge, social coordination and public participation.’
In 2006, the Decision on Major Issues of Building a Harmonious Socialist Society passed at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the CPC further pointed out that: ‘it is imperative to innovate social administration system, integrate social administration resources, improve social administration level, refine the social administration pattern of leadership by the Party committee, government in charge, social coordination and public participation, implement administration in services and reflect services in administration.’ Although the concept of ‘social administration’ was used during that period, the idea of social governance jointly by the Party committee, the government, the society and the public was ready to come out.
2. Assurance of Food and Drug Safety as the Focus of Social Construction. — In 2007, the Report of the 17th CPC National Congress stressed the social construction with the people’s livelihood as focus and the ‘assurance of food and drug safety’ and further emphasized the ‘improvement of the social administration pattern of leadership by the Party committee, government in charge, social coordination and public participation as well as the refinement of grassroots social administration system’.
In March 2011, the Outline of the Twelfth Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development formulated according to the proposal of the CPC Central Committee was approved at the Fourth Session of the 11th National People’s Congress. Under the Outline, ‘safeguarding food and drug safety’ was included as an important content in ‘strengthening the building of the public safety system’. In addition, ‘upholding multi-party participation and joint governance’ was made an important principle for innovating the social administration system. So far, the ‘co-governance’ as a concept was brought forward for the first time.
On May 30, 2011, during a special study on the issue of strengthening and innovating social administration, the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee made it clear and definite to ‘proactively carry forward the innovation in the idea, system, mechanism, institution and method by closely centering on the general goal of building a well-off society in an all-round way and firmly holding to the general requirement of stimulating social vitality to the maximum extent, increasing the harmonious factors to the maximum extent and reducing the unharmonious factors to the maximum extent, refining the social administration pattern of leadership by the Party committee, government in charge, social coordination and public participation, strengthening the development of laws and capacity for social administration and improving grassroots social administration services.’ In July of the same year, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council promulgated the Opinions on Strengthening and Innovating Social Administration.
3. Basic Formation of the Framework of Social Administration System. — At the 18th CPC National Congress held in November 2012, ‘building a well-off society in an all-round way’ was made a strategic task, which highlighted the importance of social construction with the people’s livelihood and social administration as the core. The Report of the 18th CPC National Congress included a special chapter on ‘strengthening social construction amidst improvement of the people’s livelihood and innovation of administration’. The Report made it imperative to ‘accelerate the formation of the mechanism for social administration under the leadership of the Party committee, with the government in charge, involving social coordination and public participation and guaranteed by the rule of law by centering on the building of the social administration system of socialism with the Chinese characteristics, accelerate the formation of the sustainable basic public service system led by the government and covering urban and rural areas, accelerate the formation of the modern social organization system featuring the separation of government from the social organization, definite rights and responsibility and autonomy in accordance with the law and accelerate the formation of the social administration mechanism in the combination of governance at the source, dynamic management and emergency disposal’. In this Report, the element of the rule of law is added to the social administration and ‘guarantee by the rule of law’ is added as an important content of the objective of the social administration system. Thus far, the multi-party co-governance system based on the rule of law has clearly formed and the framework of the social administration system with the Chinese characteristics has been basically shaped.
4. Emergence of ‘Social Governance’. — Since the 18th CPC National Congress, with the continuous advance of the social administration system building, the concept ‘social governance’ was introduced and has replaced the formulation ‘social administration’. In November 2013, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, themed by ‘comprehensively deepening reform’, set the general objective of comprehensively deepening reform, that is, ‘improving and developing the system of socialism with the Chinese characteristics and promoting the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity’ and specified the task to ‘speed up the formation of the scientific and effective social governance system’. By then, the concept ‘social administration’ was out and the concept ‘social governance’ has been brought in.
5. Proposition of ‘Level of Rule of Law in Social Governance’. — In October 2014, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, with ‘comprehensively governing the country based on the rule of law’ as the theme and ‘carrying forward the building of a rule of law society’ as important content, put forward the proposition of ‘improving the level of the rule of law in social governance’ and made ‘systematic governance, law-based governance, comprehensive governance and source governance as the basis and ‘safeguarding and improving the people’s livelihood and promoting the building of the legal system for innovation in social governance system’ as the necessary condition for improving the level of the rule of law in social governance.
6. Full Expression of Social Governance Policy. — In October 2015, the formulation of the 13th five-year plan for national economic and social development was proposed at the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee. The proposal contained a part about ‘strengthening and innovating social governance’, which laid down the requirement to ‘build peaceful China, improve the system of social governance under the leadership of the Party committee, dominated by the government, involving social coordination and public participation and guaranteed by the rule of law, further refine social governance and form the structure of social governance based on full participation and sharing by the people.’ This is a full policy expression of social governance.
7. Maturing of the Content of Social Governance. — On October 31, 2019, the Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Major Issues of Upholding and Improving the System of Socialism with the Chinese Characteristics and Promoting the Modernization of the National Governance System and Governance Capacity was approved at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee. The content about ‘scientific and technological support’ is included in the part of the Decision about ‘upholding and improving the social governance system based on joint participation, co-governance and sharing, maintaining social stability and safeguarding national security’. As is clearly pointed out in this part: ‘social governance is an important part of the national governance and it is imperative to strengthen and innovate social governance, improve the social governance system under the leadership of the Party committee, with the government in charge, based on democratic consultation, social collaboration and public participation, guaranteed by the rule of law and supported by science and technology, build the social governance community which everyone has a responsibility for, fulfills responsibility for and shares benefits from, ensure that the people live and work in peace and contentment and the society is stable and orderly and build peaceful China at further high level.’ This statement is an indication of the maturity of the content of social governance.
The process of the changes in the social governance policy shows that the evolution from social administration to social governance, from the improvement of the level of the rule of law in social governance to the refinement of social governance and from social collaboration to joint participation and sharing by the whole people is a problem-oriented course of gradual evolution. The lagging social administration sector fails to meet the demand of social development, which is a cause for the Party to accelerate the building of the system and mechanism for social administration; the lagging social administration system fails to adapt to the transformation of social construction, which is a cause for the Party to renew the idea of social administration, change the social administration body and adopt social governance mode; the legal system fails to be developed at a speed suited to the need of social governance, which is a cause for the Party to make the improvement of the level of rule of law in social governance an important content of comprehensive improvement of law-based governance of the country; the extensive social governance status fails to be commensurate to the goal of building a well-off society in an all-round way, which is a cause for the Party to include the refinement of social governance in the requirements of putting into practice the ‘five concepts for development’. It is in the course of confronting problems and solving problems that the Party makes exploration and innovation continuously.
What needs to be emphasized is that we ought to deepen our understanding of the causes of the changes in relevant policies in light of the characteristics of the Internet age. ‘If the secret of the industrial age laid in the division of work, the secret of the Internet age lays in integration, that is, information exchange, resource sharing and social cooperation. This requires us to establish the idea of cooperation, communication and sharing, develop the community of social governance for which everyone takes responsibility and fulfills responsibility and form the structure of social governance based on joint participation and sharing by the whole people.… The process of strengthening and innovating social governance is a process of achieving good governance and the government and social sectors should be clear about their respective positions and fulfill their respective responsibilities. Firstly, social governance should be further socialized. Modern society is full of uncertainties, and a safe home cannot be guaranteed without the government working together with social sectors. The leading role of the Party committee and the predominance function of the government should be brought into effective play. At the same time, social members should be guided to intensify the sense of being master so that the social autonomy, self-determination and initiatives can be stimulated and the problems of the public can be solved by the public. Secondly, the rule of law in social governance should be further promoted. The rule of law as the optimal model for innovation in social governance is to address various problems arising in the course of social development. It is necessary to be good at applying the rule of law thinking to build the social governance system that can anticipate social behavior, ensure open management process and clearly define responsibilities and by applying the rule of law method to convert difficult issues in social governance into law enforcement and judicial issues for settlement. Thirdly, social governance should be further refined. Intuition and emotional thinking are highly thought of in the traditional culture of China. This mode of thinking tends to make vague generalization of things without giving sufficient attention to rigorous, rational and systematic empirical study and is liable to result in things being done carelessly. To improve the modernization of social governance, it is required to cultivate the ‘data culture’ characterized by respecting facts, esteeming rationality, stressing accuracy and emphasizing details and apply the philosophy of refinement, standardization and normalization to the whole process of social governance.’ The Internet age has accelerated the transformation of the social governance mode and facilitated such transformation.
B. Manifestation of Social Co-governance First in Food and Drug Sector
With further development of the social administration system as well as the establishment and improvement of social governance policy, ‘social co-governance’ is manifested first in the sector of food and drug safety. On April 10, 2013, the State Council released the Guiding Opinions on Local Reform and Improvement of Food and Drug Supervision and Administration System. In the part on ‘fully recognizing the significance of reforming and improving the food and drug supervision and administration system’ under the Guiding Opinions, it is pointed out that ‘food and drug safety involves the issue of the basic livelihood of the people which the CPC Central Committee and the State Council have been paying high attention to and the people have been highly concerned about. In recent years, the State has adopted a series of major policies and measures and all places and all relevant departments have been paying serious attention to the implementation and continuously intensifying regulation. This has brought about the steady improvement in the safeguarding level of food and drug safety in China which is showing a positive situation of general stability. However, as a result of the co-existence of the overlapping of regulatory responsibilities and regulatory gaps in practice, the responsibilities cannot be fulfilled completely, resources are scattered in the allocation and cannot form joint force and overall efficacy of administration is not high. At the same time, the public are putting forward higher demand on the safety and effectiveness of drugs and the capacity for drug supervision and administration needs to be improved. Reform and improvement of food and drug regulatory system as well as integration of institutions and responsibilities are conducive to the transformation of function and better performance of the responsibilities for market regulation, social administration and public services, be conducive to the streamlining of the relationship among departments in terms of responsibilities, intensification and fulfillment of regulatory responsibilities and achievement of whole-process seamless supervision and conducive to the formation of integrated, specialized and highly efficient food and drug regulatory system with extensive coverage, the formation of the social co-governance pattern for food and drug regulation and better resolution of the food and drug safety issues concerning the vital interests of the people.’ This is the first time when the concept of ‘social co-governance pattern’ is presented in government documents and applied to the sector of food and drug regulation. On June 5, 2013, the then Vice Premier Wang Yang addressed the teleconference on national food and drug safety and regulatory system reform and again emphasized the necessity of the ‘social co-governance pattern’ for guaranteeing food and drug safety. What is more, ‘social co-governance and concerted efforts to safeguard food safety’ was made the theme of the Launching Ceremony of the China Food Safety Publicity Week and the Fifth China Food Safety Forum held on June 17. In March 2014, the Report on the Work of the Government delivered by Premier Li Keqiang clearly laid down the requirements to ‘establish the regulatory mechanism, social co-governance system and traceability system covering the whole process from production and process to circulation and consumption, and refine the food and drug safety regulatory system from Central, local and up to grassroots level’.
Since the effectiveness of the Food Safety Law of 2015, the General Office of the State Council has been focusing on the social co-governance of food safety in its work arrangement and come up with specific measures. For example, the Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Printing and Distribution of the Arrangement of Priorities of Work in Food Safety in 2016 included relevant arrangements for ‘promoting social co-governance of food safety’(Table 1).
Table 1: Major Measures of the General Office of the State Council for Promoting Social Co-governance of Food Safety in 2016
The Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Printing and Distribution of the Arrangement of Priorities of Work in Food Safety in 2017 included the following arrangement for ‘promoting social co-governance of food safety’:
Table 2: Major Measures of the General Office of the State Council for Promoting Social Co-governance of Food Safety in 2017
On the basis of continuous progress in work, the Office of the State Council Food Safety Commission printed and distributed the Measures (Interim) and Standards (Version 2017) for Assessment and Management of the National Food Safety Demonstrative Cities. Specifically, Part VII of the Standards (Version 2017) provides for the indicators of ‘basic formation of social co-governance pattern’, which mainly include the following.
The first indicator is the improvement of the food safety integrity system. The government has established and improved the food safety integrity management and included the food safety credit status of the entities, legal persons and individuals relating to food production and operation fully in the scope of social integrity, the food safety credit information of various types of food producers and operators are completely and accurately recorded and promptly updated and the dishonest acts in food safety are jointly published in finance, land, permit and other sectors.
The second indicator is the pilot implementation of food safety liability insurance. Food safety liability insurance is carried out on pilot basis, there are sound policies, ex ante, interim and ex post, for settlement of insurance claims and eligible consumers can receive payments of insurance claims in a timely and convenient manner. (This is an encouraged item)
This third indicator is the unblocked channel of social supervision. An online complaint platform is launched, the unified telephone number for filing complaints and reporting violations is maintained and the line is kept open at all times and responses are provided within the statutory time limit. A special fund is established and measures are adopted for valid reporting and paying rewards in a timely manner for the reports meeting the requirements. The local news media maintains a special column for popularizing food safety knowledge on a regular basis and exposing typical cases involving food safety. The roles of the deputies to People’s Congresses, CPPCC members, experts, scholars, news media, representatives of industry associations and other nongovernment sectors are brought into full play and supervision is conducted over the performance of duties by government and regulatory departments and the fulfillment of subject responsibilities by enterprises.
The fourth indicator is the compensation claim mechanism. Local places are encouraged to release measures for applying summary civil procedures to the food safety cases where facts are clear, rights and obligations are definite and the dispute is trivial and supporting consumers in claiming compensation from enterprises; the local consumer protection organizations claim compensation from enterprises through public-interest litigation channel in major cases involving food safety. (This is an encouraged item)
The fifth indicator is the timely and effective exchange on food safety risks. The risk exchange mechanism is refined, work is done at a high level and science popularization and publicity are conducted in a timely manner in respect of the mistaken ideas and misunderstanding about food safety among the public to cause the public to set up correct ideas about risks. Food safety is included in the law popularization, popular science and knowledge dissemination, professional skill training and classroom education of students. A news spokesman system is established, news conferences and news briefings are held on a regular basis and initiatives are taken in releasing authoritative information to eliminate doubts and confusions in a timely manner.
The sixth indicator is the high knowledge level of the public. The public have high levels of knowledge about food safety and are generally aware of and extensively support the work in creating national food safety demonstrative cities.
On the basis of the continuous advance of the social co-governance of food safety, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council released the Opinions on Deepening Reform and Strengthening Food Safety Work (hereinafter referred to as the Opinions) in May 2019. As a highest-level normative document jointly released by the Party and the government, the Opinions covers the policies of the Party and the government on food safety work in the next fifteen years. Some propositions will be further transformed into national laws or into the internal rules and regulations of the Party. The Opinions is formulated and released because food safety has a bearing on the physical health and life safety of the people and the future of the Chinese nation. The report of the 19th CPC National Congress has clearly laid down the requirement of implementing food safety strategy so as to let people eat at ease. Reform and innovation should be deepened and the most rigorous standards, the severest punishment and the most serious accountability should be adopted to further strengthen food safety work and guarantee food safety for the people. In this connection, the Opinions specifies the principle of the food safety work, namely, upholding safety first, taking a problem-oriented approach, giving priority to prevention and insisting on law-based supervision and administration, reform and innovation as well as joint governance and sharing. The Opinions serves as an extremely important policy document for implementing the food safety strategy stated in the report of the 19th CPC National Congress, a programmatic document for deepening reform and strengthening food safety work and the first document on food safety work released in the name of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council in seventy years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Full implementation of the principles set in the Opinions is the essential basis and important guarantee for modernizing the national governance system and governance capacity in the food safety sector. Social co-governance is highly regarded and clearly manifested in the Opinions.
II. FIRST LEGISLATION ON SOCIAL CO-GOVERNANCE OF FOOD SAFETY
The 2009 Food Safety Law was revised after being implemented for five years. As the highlight of the revision, ‘social co-governance’ is written in the law and becomes one of the four principles of food safety work.
A. Process of Including Social Co-governance in the Law
On June 23, 2014, Zhang Yong, the then Administrator of the China Food and Drug Administration, presented the Notes on the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised Draft) at the Ninth Session of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress and pointed out the necessities for the revisions as follows:
‘Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council have further reformed and improved the food safety regulatory system of China, paid attention to the establishment of the strictest food safety regulatory system and actively promoted the social co-governance pattern for food safety. In order to fix the results of the regulatory system reform in the form of law, improve regulatory system and mechanism, solve the prominent problems existing in the food safety sector, safeguard food safety based on the rule of law and provide a system and institutional guarantee for the strictest food safety regulation, it is necessary to revise the existing food safety law.’ The Notes also pointed out the overall thinking for the revisions, that is, ‘carrying out social co-governance of food safety, bringing into full play the supervisory roles of consumers, industry associations and news media, among others, guide all parties concerned to participate in governance in an orderly manner and form the pattern of social co-governance of food safety.’
On December 22, 2014, Cong Bin, Vice Chairman of the Constitution and Law Committee of the National People’s Congress delivered the Report on the Revisions to the Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised Draft) at the 12th Session of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress. The report wrote: ‘Article 3 of the Revised Draft provides that the principle of social co-governance shall apply to the food safety work. Some members of the Standing Committee and the public suggest that the provisions in this regard be replenished to bring into full play the roles of the industry association, media and consumers, etc. After careful study, the Law Committee suggested the following revisions: firstly, the food industry association should be required to establish and refine the industrial standards and internal reward and punishment mechanism in accordance with the articles of association, provide food safety information, technology and other services and guide and urge food producers and operators to conduct production and operation in accordance with the law; secondly, consumers association and other consumers organizations should be required to carry out in accordance with the law the social supervision over the acts that cause harm to the legitimate rights and interests of consumers in violation of this law; thirdly, provisions on confidentiality of relevant information of the persons filing reports on violations should be added to protect their legitimate rights and interests; fourthly, paragraph 2 of article 121 of the Second Revised Draft for Review, which requires verification of relevant food safety information with the food and drug supervisory and administrative department before such information is released, should be deleted and the provision that relevant competent department shall impose in accordance with the law the punishment on the media that fabricates or spreads false information on food safety and sanctions on the person in charge who is directly responsible and the persons who are directly liable should be added.’
These two documents on the revisions to the drafts for comments gave us some sense of the evolution of the recognition of social co-governance in the process of law revision. In the Notes on Revisions to the Food Safety Law (Revised Draft for Review) submitted by the former China Food and Drug Administration to the Legal Affairs Office of the State Council (hereinafter referred to as the CFDA Notes on Revisions), measures in three aspects were presented. The first measure was the establishment of food safety risk exchange system, the second measure was the inclusion of representatives from the food industry association and consumers association in the committee for evaluation of the national standards for food safety and the third measure was the incorporation of food safety knowledge in the national education, among other things. Meanwhile, measures for social co-governance were also presented in the Notes on Revisions to the Food Safety Law (Revised Draft for Review) submitted by the State Council to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (hereinafter referred to as the State Council Notes on Revisions). Such measures were about the aspects quite different from those presented in the CFDA Notes on Revisions. The first measure concerned about the provision on a valid reporting system for food safety. Such content was covered in the CFDA Notes on Revisions as the fifth measure for innovating regulatory mechanism and specific expressions in both documents were different. The second measure concerned about the release of food safety information (such content was covered in the CFDA Notes on Revisions as the sixth measure for innovation regulatory mechanism) and specific expressions in both documents were different. The third measure concerned about the adoption of food safety liability insurance system. Such content was covered in the CFDA Notes on Revisions as the fifth measure for intensifying the fulfillment of the subject responsibilities of enterprises and the statement that purchase of insurance is ‘required’ was changed into the expression that the purchase of insurance is ‘encouraged’ and ‘supported’. The comparison of the above differences can lead to some conclusions. Firstly, the provision on the incorporation of food safety knowledge in the national education under the ‘Revised Draft’ was not retained in the ‘Draft for Review’. Secondly, the risk exchange system was not mentioned in the State Council Notes on Revisions. The provision on risk exchange was not stressed in the State Council Notes on Revisions as much as it was in the CFDA Notes on Revisions. Thirdly, food safety liability insurance was deemed as one of the measures for social co-governance under the State Council Notes on Revisions and was not compulsory as it was under the CFDA Notes on Revisions. Fourthly, the State Council Notes on Revisions imposed strict control on, while encouraging media to supervise and expecting the public to participate in, information release and required the establishment of review mechanism for information release. The above legislative materials show that the highest legislative authority has attached great importance to the social co-governance of food safety and that how to reflect the social co-governance policy in legislation is a process of continuously deepening understanding and adopting all useful ideas.
On April 24, 2015, the Food Safety Law was revised and adopted at the 14th Session of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress (hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Food Safety Law). Article 3 of such law provides that: ‘the work in connection with food safety shall follow the principles of prevention first, risk management, whole-process control, and social co-governance and a scientific and strict supervision and administration system shall be established.’ By this provision, social co-governance is written in legislation and becomes a statutory principle.
B. Significance of Including Social Co-governance in the Law
Social co-governance, as a policy of the Party and the government, was presented in the sectors of food and drug simultaneously. However, social co-governance was written in legislation in the sector of food safety five years earlier than in the drug sector. Thus, in establishment of ‘social co-governance’ as an important legal principle, the Food Safety Law is a pioneer. It is not only the important reflection of the new concept of social governance in the sector of food safety, but also the sublimation of the policy expression of social co-governance.
Legal principle is a very important part of the elements of the law. Of the various theories about the elements of the law, the theory of three elements, namely, legal concept, legal rule and legal principle, is most convincing. Legal principle is the comprehensive and stable principle and criterion that can serve as the foundation or origin of legal rule without establishing in advance any definite and specific state of facts or prescribing specific rights, obligations or legal consequences. However, it guides and coordinates the legal adjustment mechanism for all social relations or social relations in a certain sector. Principles can be divided into two major types: policy principles and the principles of public reason. Policy principles are the political designs or decisions made by the State in order to achieve the strategic objectives of economic and social development or accomplish the tasks in a certain period or a certain aspect. Such principles are generally applied in connection with the overall and fundamental issues such as the development objectives and strategic measures in connection with economy, politics, culture, society and ecosystems. The principles of public reason are historic and regional. However, they derive from the nature of social relations and are, thus, widely recognized and regarded as the common reason of the law. The principles, regardless of policy principles or principles of public reason, include basic principles and specific principles. Basic principles embody the essence and fundamental value of the law, are the guiding thoughts of the whole legal activities, constitute the soul of a legal system and decide the intrinsic integrity and stability of the law. Specific principles are the concretization of basic principles, and constitute the guiding thoughts and the direct starting point of certain legal field or certain types of legal activities. To sum up, the principle of social co-governance falls within specific policy principles.
The rise of social co-governance from the policy with important theoretical basis up to legal principle realizes the legalization of policy and causes the social co-governance policy to be finalized and refined. It has a guiding effect on the development of food safety work and has intensified social co-governance policy in terms of its execution and operation in the sector of food safety.
C. Special Systems Reflecting the Social Co-governance Principle
The 2015 Food Safety Law prescribes not only the principle of social co-governance but also some systems reflecting the social co-governance principle and gives considerable expression to social co-governance.
Firstly, the 2015 Food Safety Law clearly requires that the food industry association establish and refine the industrial norms as well as reward and punishment mechanism, provide information, technology and other services relating to food safety, guide and urge food producers and operators to engage in production and operation pursuant to the law. Such provisions are included in paragraph 1 of article 9, paragraph 3 of article 32 and paragraph 2 of article 116 of the law.
Paragraph 1 of article 9 states: ‘Food industry associations shall strengthen industry self-discipline, establish and improve industry norms and reward and punishment mechanism according to the articles and association, provide information, technology and other services relating to food safety, guide and urge producers and business operators of food to engage in production and operation pursuant to the law, promote industry integrity building, and publicize and popularize food safety knowledge.’
Paragraph 3 of article 32 states: ‘Food producers and operators as well as food industry associations shall report the problems discovered in the implementation of food safety standards to the health administrative departments immediately.’
Paragraph 2 of article 116 states: ‘Where producers and operators of food, food industry associations and consumers associations, etc. find that any person engaging in food safety law enforcement commits a violation of laws and regulations or carries out law enforcement in an unregulated manner during law enforcement, they may submit complaints and reports to the food and drug administrations, quality supervision departments and other relevant departments of the people’s governments at the same or higher level or to supervisory organs. The departments or organs receiving the complaints and reports shall conduct verification and notify the department where the person is engaging in food safety law enforcement works of the verification situation. Where the person is suspected of violating laws or disciplines, the violation shall be handled according to this law and relevant provisions.’
Secondly, the 2015 Food Safety Law clearly requires that consumer associations and other consumer organizations carry out in accordance with the law social supervision over the acts that harm the legitimate rights and interests of consumers in violation of the Food Safety Law. Relevant provisions are included in paragraph 2 of article 9, paragraph 2 of article 28 and paragraph 2 of article 116 of the law.
Paragraph 2 of article 9 states: ‘Consumer associations and other consumer organizations shall conduct social supervision pursuant to the law over the activities causing harm to the lawful rights and interests of consumers in violation of this law.’
Paragraph 2 of article 28 states: ‘National food safety standards shall be examined and adopted by the national food safety standards evaluation committee organized by the health administrative department of the State Council. The national food safety standards evaluation committee shall consist of experts from medicine, agriculture, food, nutrition, biology, environment and other fields, as well as representatives from relevant departments of the State Council, food industry associations and consumer associations. The national food safety standards evaluation committee shall be responsible for examining the draft of national food safety standards in terms of the scientificity, practicality and other aspects thereof.’
Paragraph 2 of article 116 states: ‘Where producers and business operators of food, food industry associations and consumers associations, etc. find that any person engaging in food safety law enforcement commits a violation of laws and regulations or carries out law enforcement in an unregulated manner during law enforcement, they may submit complaints and reports to the food and drug administrations, quality supervision departments and other relevant departments of the people’s governments at the same or higher level or to supervisory organs. The departments or organs receiving the complaints and tip-offs shall conduct verification and notify the department where the person is engaging in food safety law enforcement works of the verification situation. Where the person is suspected of violating laws or disciplines, the violation shall be handled according to this law and relevant provisions.’
Thirdly, the 2015 Food Safety Law additionally prescribes the reward system for reporting violations and clearly requires that the persons reporting the violations that are verified to be true be provided with rewards, that the government and regulatory departments keep confidential the information relating to the persons filing reports on violations and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the persons, and that special protection be provided to the persons who file reports on the violations of food safety laws committed by their employers. Relevant provisions are mainly included in articles 12 and 115 of the law.
Article 12 states: ‘Any organization or individual shall be entitled to report violations of food safety laws, inquire about food safety information from relevant departments, and put forward comments and suggestions on food safety supervision and administration work.’
Article 115 states: ‘Food and drug administrations, quality supervision departments and other relevant departments of the people’s governments at or above the county level shall publish their email addresses or telephone numbers for receiving inquiries, complaints and reports on violations. Upon receipt of inquiries, complaints and reports, the department concerned shall accept the inquiries, complaints and reports if they fall under its responsibilities, and promptly issue replies or conduct verification or handling within the statutory time limit; if the inquiries, complaints and reports fall beyond its responsibilities, the department shall transfer the inquiries, complaints and reports to the competent department and notify the party that submits the inquiries, complaints and reports thereof. Such competent department shall promptly address the same within the statutory time limit without shifting the responsibilities and duties. The informers shall be rewarded once the complaints and reports are verified to be true upon investigation.
Relevant departments shall keep confidential the information on informers and protect the lawful rights and interests of informers. Where an informer makes tip-offs against the enterprise where the informer works, such enterprise shall not retaliate upon the informer through revoking or revising the labor contract or by any other means.’
Fourthly, the 2015 Food Safety Law lays down requirements to standardize the release of food safety information. It emphasizes that regulatory departments should release food safety information in an accurate, timely and objective manner, encourages news media to carry out public opinion supervision over the violations of food safety laws, requires that the publicity and coverage relating to food safety should be authentic and fair and prohibits any entity or individual from fabricating or spreading false information on food safety. Relevant provisions are mainly included in paragraph 3 of article 118, paragraph 2 of article 10 and article 120 of the law.
Paragraph 3 of article 118 states: ‘Food safety information shall be released in an accurate and timely manner and necessary explanations shall be made to avoid misleading consumers and public opinions.’
Paragraph 2 of article 10 states: ‘News media shall carry out non-profit publicity of food safety laws, regulations, standards and knowledge and supervise violations of this law by public opinions. The publicity and coverage of food safety issues shall be authentic and fair.’
Article 120 states: ‘No entity and individual may fabricate and spread false food safety information. Where the food and drug administration of a people’s government at or above the county level finds any food safety information that may mislead consumers and public opinions, it shall immediately organize relevant departments, professional institutions and relevant food producers and business operators, etc. to conduct verification and analysis and release results thereof in a timely manner.’
On December 29, 2018, some revisions were made to the Food Safety Law at the Seventh Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress. The revisions mainly involved the expression of regulators and no revision was made to the provisions concerning social co-governance.
D. Essentials for Implementation of the Social Co-governance Principle
Social co-governance is a statutory principle of the work in connection with food safety and must be embodied in all dimensions. If it is reflected in a certain section or a certain aspect only, it cannot truly exert its effect. This can be construed from three perspectives so far as the governance system is concerned.
Firstly, attention should be paid to the reflection of such principle in the legislation on food safety and relevant supporting legislations should provide for practical and feasible system and mechanism under the guidance of social co-governance so as to ensure that the guidelines of strong operability are provided at the source for law enforcement and judicial practices relating to food safety. This is the prerequisite for the implementation of the social co-governance principle.
Secondly, the spirits of social co-governance should be taken as the basis to conduct exploration and come up with effective measures for safety supervision and administration over the whole process of food from farmland to dining table. The food industry chain is long and involves complicated links. The problem is any link may give rise to food safety incidents. Therefore, only when it is emphasized in the whole, rather than a certain link or phase, of the food industry chain, can social co-governance exert its effect in food safety-related work.
Thirdly, of the four principles for food safety work, whether the first three principles can be truly implemented depends on the degree of the fulfillment of the social co-governance principle. The three principles, i.e., ‘prevention first, risk management, whole-process control’, mostly reflect the characteristics and requirements of food safety itself, are about the risk-based governance and look at the nature of the thing. In contrast, social co-governance reflects the new requirements of the State on issues of public safety governance and is used as criteria for distinguishing between traditional regulation and modern governance. If social co-governance is disregarded in the implementation of the principles of ‘prevention first, risk management, whole-process control’, food safety work would be turned back to the status of traditional regulation where the government department is the sole player. To achieve the fundamental transformation of governance approach, social co-governance should have a place in the implementation of the said three principles. This is how food safety governance can form an unblocked bridge and close bond with the most extensive community of shared interests.
III. PARTY REGULATION GUARANTEE FOR THE SOCIAL CO-GOVERNANCE OF FOOD SAFETY
Social co-governance of food safety has gained support from the policies of the Party and the State as well as the laws of the State. In addition, the Party’s internal rules include special specifications to facilitate the effective implementation of such social co-governance. This method of using the Party’s internal rules to push forward the work in social co-governance of food safety is undoubtedly an important innovation in the system for governance in food safety sector.
A. Meaning and Positioning of the Party’s Internal Rules
Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the CPC Central Committee with General Secretary Xi Jinping as the core has been attaching high importance to the building of the Party’s internal rules and made a series of major decisions and arrangements in that regard. In 2012, the Regulations on Formulation of Internal Rules of the Communist Party of China, the Provisions on Record-filing of the Internal Rules and Normative Documents of the Communist Party of China and the Opinions of the General Office of the CPC Central Committee on Sorting of Internal Rules and Normative Documents of the Communist Party of China were promulgated for implementation. In 2014, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee adopted the Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Major Issues concerning Comprehensive Promotion of the Rule of Law, under which the ‘formation of a well-established system of the Party’s internal rules’ is made an important part in the building of the socialist legal system with the Chinese characteristics. In 2016, the Opinions of the CPC Central Committee on Strengthening the System Building for Internal Rules was promulgated for implementation.
The Party’s internal rules, as the important part of the important institution of socialism with the Chinese characteristics and the national governance system, play a unique role in improving the leadership system of the Party, raising the level of scientific governance, democratic governance and law-based governance by the Party, guaranteeing the orderly advance of the rule of law and realizing the modernization of national governance. The national governance system is the institutional system for management of the country under the Party’s leadership and the Party’s internal rules contained therein, as an integral part of such system, are the supreme norms of the rules and regulations of the Party and serve as the important system support for management and governance of the Party. When rule-based governance of the Party takes root in the Party, law-based governance of the country can take root in the people. The building of the Party’s internal rules has a profound influence on the actual result of the building of the socialist rule of law with the Chinese characteristics and directly decides the pace and level of modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. Strengthening the building of the Party’s internal rules and regulations is not only the fundamental and long-term strategy for all-out effort to enforce strict Party discipline but also an integral part in upholding and improving the socialist system with the Chinese characteristics and accelerating the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity.
B. Release of Special Rules of the Party
The Provisions on the Food Safety Responsibility System for Local Party and Government Leaders (effective as of February 5, 2019) promulgated by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, as the first Party’s internal rule concerning the food safety responsibilities of the local Party and government leaders, works out a comprehensive and systematic institutional design of the system for the food safety responsibilities of local Party and government leaders for the first time. It applies equal requirements to the responsibilities of the Party and government leaders for food safety. By these provisions, the decisions and arrangements on food safety work as made by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council are implemented at the level of the Party’s internal rules. According to the Provisions, the responsibilities of the persons in charge of food safety work of the local governments at various levels include: ‘organizing the work in connection with food safety such as popularization of the laws, publicity of the popular science, safety education and integrity system building and pushing forward the social co-governance of food safety.’
The Provisions on the Food Safety Responsibility System for Local Party and Government Leaders is a Party’s internal rule formulated jointly by the Party and government organs. Promoting the social co-governance of food safety on the strength of the Party’s internal rules jointly formulated by the Party and the government organs clearly indicates that the Party’s leadership plays the role of overall direction in the practice of social co-governance and is totally different from the governance in the politics of the political parties in western countries. What are popular in western social sciences are state-centrism and social-centrism. Both derive from the empirical analysis of the social composition and change of particular countries in their process of modernization. The theoretical system of the social-centrism is generated from the British-American experience of modernization relying on the domination of market approach and social forces and the state-centrism theory is generated from the German-Japanese experience of modernization driven by the state or bureaucratic machine. China is a country emerged later as a modern state. It is the CPC that integrated the society under the ‘jungle rules’ status and founded the country. This is completely different from the background for generating the state-centrism and social-centrism and distinct from the circumstances of the ruling parties in western countries where legislative, executive and judicial powers are separated. Certainly, the Party’s internal rules formulated by the CPC that have the hold of government affairs and political power are obviously distinguished from the rules and regulations of political parties in common sense.
C. Significance of Guarantee by Special Internal Rules of the Party
The Decision of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee clearly points out: ‘The Party’s internal rules are the important basis for management and governance of the Party and also the powerful guarantee of the building of the socialist country based on the rule of law.’ This is an accurate description of the important position of the Party’s internal rules in comprehensive promotion of the rule of law and an indication that the Party has scientifically grasped the relation between the management and governance of the Party according to the Party’s internal rules and the governance of the country according to the law. On the one hand, the CPC is the ruling party. Only when the Party strictly observes the Party’s internal rules and consciously acts within the scope of the Constitution and the law, can a sound atmosphere for the governance of country based on the law be created. On the other hand, only when the Party’s internal rules are applied to guarantee the Party’s leadership throughout the whole process and in all aspects of the law-based governance of the country and ensure that the Party leads the legislation, guarantees the law enforcement, supports the justice and takes the lead in abiding by the law, can the law-based governance of the country have development impetus and proceed in the right direction at all times. This is an important reason why it is said that ‘the implementation of the laws of the State cannot be guaranteed without the rules and regulations of the Party’ and that ‘the law-based governance of the country can take root in the people only when rule-based governance of the Party takes root in the Party’. Therefore, the Party’s internal rules can not only ensure that the leading cadres can better fulfill the responsibilities in the work in connection with food safety but also guarantee that the provisions relating to food safety, including the social co-governance principle, under the State’s laws can be effectively implemented.
Based on the above discussion, we can better understand why the special internal rules of the Party are formulated for promoting the governance of food safety. In this regards, the relevant person in charge of the State Administration for Market Regulation made the following remarks on the Provisions on the Food Safety Responsibility System for Local Party and Government Leaders in meeting the press: The CPC Central Committee and the State Council have been attaching importance to the work in connection with food safety and released a series of major decisions and arrangements for the food safety work since the 18th CPC National Congress in particular. In December 2013, General Secretary Xi Jinping, when addressing the Central Rural Work Conference, pointed out that the most rigorous standards, the strictest regulation, the severest punishment and the most serious accountability should be applied to guarantee food safety for the people. In May 2015, at a collective study session of the CPC Central Committee’s Political Bureau, General Secretary Xi Jinping required that the Party committees and the governments at various levels effectively fulfill the political responsibility for promoting the local development and guaranteeing the local peace and that the responsibility system be strictly implemented. In December 2016, at the 14th Meeting of the Central Leading Group on Financial and Economic Affairs, General Secretary Xi Jinping stressed that the Party committees and the governments at various levels should take the food safety work as a major political task. Premier Li Keqiang also put forward the requirements on several occasions on fulfillment of the responsibilities of local governments for territory-based management of food safety. Under the unified arrangement by the CPC Central Committee, the Provisions were drafted as led by the State Administration for Market Regulation and the Office of the State Council Food Safety Commission for the purpose of implementing the decisions and arrangements of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council, fulfilling the requirements of same responsibilities of the Party and the government for food safety and improving the responsibility system for food safety. By upholding General Secretary Xi Jinping’s Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in a New Era, the Provisions will play a significant and positive role in promoting the food safety work pattern featuring the same responsibilities on the Party committees and government departments, one position with dual responsibilities, integration of rights and responsibilities, concerted efforts, accountability for dereliction of duty and exemption of liability based on due diligence’ and improving the capacity and level of the modernized governance of food safety. The promulgation of the Provisions is significant and the significance was stressed by the relevant person in charge of the State Administration for Market Regulation in meeting the press. As stated by the person in charge, the Provisions specify the food safety responsibilities of the local Party and government leaders who are the ‘key minority of officials in important positions’ in five respects, namely, primary persons in charge of local Party committees, primary persons in charge of local government, other members of the standing committee of the local Party committee, persons in charge of food safety work of the local government and other members of the leading body of the local government. The Provisions make clear and definite what responsibilities are, how to fulfill the responsibilities and how to deal with the failure to fulfill the responsibilities and can help to join the efforts of the Party and government leaders in the work relating to food safety. It is an important reflection of the authority of the internal rules and regulations of the Party and serves as an effective measure for solving real problems.
In 2016, the law enforcement inspection group of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress conducted an inspection of the implementation of the Food Safety Law in Hubei and Inner Mongolia, among other places. The inspection report wrote that ‘some major cases showed that the leaders of some local governments did not pay enough attention to food safety, failed to effectively fulfill responsibilities and had a poor understanding of the situation of food safety.’ In respect of such problems, Professor Shen Kui made a detailed analysis and was of the opinion that the ex post accountability system for the major incidents relating to food safety and the performance assessment which plays the role of directing the actions of local government leaders cannot sufficiently cause the ‘key leaders’ to take adequate and effective political responsibility to the people for supervision and administration over food safety. For the ‘key leaders’ who lack real recognition of the importance of food safety regulation and do not support relevant work, the powerful accountability mechanism may cause them to feel pressure and pay more attention to the work. According to item(2) of article 5 of the Interim Provisions on Application of Accountability to the Party and Government Leaders (hereinafter referred to as the Interim Provisions), accountability is applicable to the Party and government leaders. Such accountability has the following five characteristics.
Firstly, the accountability applies after the occurrence of food safety problems or accidents and is not for ex ante and interim accountable supervision. Secondly, accountability is not started unless ‘serious consequence, or bad influence or loss is caused’. Thirdly, the persons subject to accountability are not specifically, clearly and precisely identified. Fourthly, the right to initiate accountability procedure lies within the Party and government system and, in particular, derives from the supervision exercised by the superiors to the inferiors. Fifthly, the ex post accountability lacks whole-course transparency. In addition, the performance assessment system of the local government may, in reality, function as a baton for the actions of the ‘key leaders’ of the local government. In 2012, the Decision of the State Council on Strengthening Food Safety Work clearly states: ‘The government at the higher level shall conduct an annual assessment of the government at the lower level in terms of its performance of work in food safety and make the results of assessment the important content of the comprehensive assessment and appraisal of the local leadership and leading cadres. The cities where major food safety accidents have occurred shall be subject to veto in appraisal and selection as civilized cities or healthy cities.’ For the ‘first time, food safety is included in the annual performance assessment of local governments’. However, problems remained. The law enforcement inspection conducted by the National People’s Congress four years later found that the local governments had not paid enough attention to the work in connection with food safety. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the implementation of the Interim Provisions and the Decision of the State Council on Strengthening Food Safety Work has failed to achieve their intended purposes. Therefore, the formulation of special provisions on accountability of local Party and government leaders for food safety is of pertinence and has realistic significance as well.
D. Analysis of the Responsibilities for Promoting Social Co-governance of Food Safety
Upon comparison, it can be found that the Provisions on the Food Safety Responsibility System for Local Party and Government Leaders (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions) and the Interim Provisions are different from each other mainly in four aspects. Firstly, specific requirements in respect of food safety are not directly available in the Interim Provisions because of extensive coverage thereof; in contrast, the Provisions exactly focus on the food safety sector. Secondly, the Interim Provisions are more about the procedures for accountability, while the Provisions specify the responsibilities of local Party and government leaders in light of their different capacities and are, thus, more pertinent. Thirdly, the Interim Provisions focus on ex post accountability, while the Provisions give reflection to the principles of ex ante and interim accountability in addition to ex post accountability. Fourthly, the Interim Provisions provide for accountability only, while the Provisions specify both rewards and punishments and, thus, reflect mutual guarantee and mutual enhancement of supervision and incentive.
Evidently, the Provisions specify the system for food safety responsibilities of local Party and government cadres pertinently and provide effective guarantee thereof by the Party’s internal rules and regulations. Of course, just as the life of the law lies in implementation, the authority of the Party’s internal rules and regulations lies in implementation. The implementation of the rules mainly depends on the law enforcement sense of local Party committees and the intensification of specific responsibility supervision exercised by relevant discipline inspection commissions and supervisory commissions. In this connection, it is necessary to further illuminate that the Provisions specify the responsibilities of persons in charge of food safety work of the local governments at various levels, which include ‘organizing the work in connection with food safety such as popularization of the laws, publicity of the popular science, safety education and integrity system building and pushing forward the social co-governance of food safety.’ Does this mean that only the persons in charge of food safety work of the local governments at various levels are responsible for the work to promote social co-governance of food safety? The answer should be ‘no’.
Under the Provisions, the primary persons in charge of the Party committees at various local levels are required to strengthen the Party’s leadership over the local work in connection with food safety and conscientiously implement the guidelines, policies, decisions, arrangements and instructions of the CPC Central Committee in respect of food safety work, the decisions of the Party committee at the higher level and the requirements of relevant laws and regulations; the primary persons in charge of the governments at various local levels are required to strengthen the leadership over the local work in connection with food safety and conscientiously implement the guidelines, policies, decisions, arrangements and instructions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council in respect of food safety work, the decisions of the Party committee and government at higher level, the decisions of the Party committee at the same level and the requirements of relevant laws and regulations. Social co-governance of food safety is not only the important principle and system determined in the national laws, but also the important policy requirement of the Party on food safety work. It is the requirement of the important guidelines, policies, decisions, arrangements and instructions on food safety work and, therefore, should be implemented conscientiously by the primary persons in charge of the Party committees at various local levels. Accordingly, the primary persons in charge of the governments at various local levels are duty-bound to implement. It should be avoided to assume that the work to promote social co-governance of food safety is the job of, or leave such work to, the persons in charge of the food safety work of the governments at various local levels.
To form the social co-governance pattern for food safety, the Party and government leaders should foremost reach consensus and then form joint force in work. Otherwise, social co-governance work would mostly remain in a situation of attention by a few leaders and promotion in a few sectors. If that is the case, social co-governance would come to nothing.
IV. CONCLUSION
Social co-governance of food safety is an important system resulting from the transformation of the policy of the State into the legal principle.
Social co-governance of food safety is an indication of the development of the mass line, a fundamental line of work of the Party, under the background of the era of modernization of national governance.
Social co-governance is an important idea that advocates the participation of all sectors to jointly deal with the food safety issue, an ‘extremely big issue’, under the premise of admitting the limited capacity of the government for regulation and reflects the major change of the idea about food safety governance.
In current China, it is the food safety sector that can take the lead in realizing joint construction, co-governance, sharing and everyone taking responsibility, fulfilling responsibility and sharing results. This can be explained by the position of food safety as a vital issue. For one thing, it is put by the CPC, which has the supreme political power, in an important position and is closely connected with qualification for taking power. For another, the food safety issue is directly related to the interests of each of 1.4 billion Chinese people and involves the biggest community of shared interests and the highest attention.
