Recently, the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission issued the “Opinions on Strictly Investigating and Punishing Crimes and Offenses Endangering Food Safety in Accordance with the Law” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions”), which sets strict requirements for the entire criminal proceedings process. The document focuses on key areas and critical stages, improves the mechanism for coordinating administrative and criminal enforcement, and calls for “strong measures and decisive action” against lawbreakers who are blinded by greed and challenge the boundaries of morality and conscience—ensuring that every case is investigated and dealt with as soon as it is discovered. The document is viewed within the industry as an important signal of an elevated standard in China’s food safety governance.

Attorney Tang Jianbin, a senior partner at Beijing King&Capital Law Firm and director of the King&Capital Research Center for Environmental, Food, Drug, and Intellectual Property Law, was interviewed by China National Radio (CNR). From the perspective of criminal practice, he analyzed the substantive changes the “Opinions” will bring to the handling of food safety cases and offered insights on the boundaries of liability regarding the “coordination between administrative and criminal enforcement” in new business models such as live-streamed e-commerce and fresh produce e-commerce.

I. Elevated Governance Standards:

Moving from “Industry Regulation” to “Strict Oversight Throughout the Entire Process”

A report by China National Radio Network (CNR) noted that, compared to previous industry regulatory documents—which were primarily issued by market supervision authorities—the issuance of the “Opinions” by the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission directly drives a comprehensive elevation in the overall standards of food safety governance, public attention, and the deterrent effect of law enforcement. Focusing on key areas such as school group meals and online food sales, the “Opinions” outline comprehensive, multi-dimensional measures targeting key food categories and high-risk stages.

In the view of attorney Tang Jianbin, food safety crimes not only undermine the state’s regulatory order regarding food safety but also infringe upon the rights to life and health of the general public; their social harm far exceeds that of ordinary property crimes. Therefore, the “Opinions” call for strict enforcement throughout the entire criminal proceedings and strict control over the application of suspended sentences, demonstrating clear practical relevance. For legal practice, this means that food safety cases are no longer merely matters of “administrative fines”; instead, every stage—from investigation and review for prosecution to trial and enforcement of sentences—will face stricter scrutiny.

II. Strict Enforcement Throughout the Entire Process Brings Four Practical Changes

From a practical perspective, Attorney Tang Jianbin points out that a strict approach throughout the entire process will bring about four substantive changes:

First, the thresholds for applying probation, non-prosecution, and exemption from criminal punishment will be raised, and courts will exercise greater caution in their discretion regarding such cases;

Second, the factors considered in sentencing evaluations will change, with greater weight given to “public danger”; cases involving key sectors, affecting vulnerable groups, or spreading across regions will, in principle, be handled more strictly;

Third, scrutiny during the prosecution review stage will be tightened earlier; procuratorial organs will adopt a more conservative approach when considering plea agreements and decisions not to prosecute, thereby reducing the scope for leniency arguments;

Fourth, the integrated evaluation of prior administrative penalties will be strengthened; repeat offenses following multiple prior penalties for violations in the food sector will be directly treated as aggravating circumstances.

These changes imply that criminal defense and compliance services related to food safety cannot be limited to a single charge or a single stage of the process; rather, they must extend forward to administrative investigations and evidence preservation, and backward to sentencing considerations and the enforcement phase. For enterprises involved in such cases, the systemic requirements for pre-incident compliance, in-process response, and post-incident rectification will be significantly heightened.

III. Streamlining the “Coordination Between Administrative and Criminal Proceedings”: Reducing the Scope for “Substituting Fines for Criminal Penalties,” While Still Addressing Practical Constraints

The lack of smooth coordination between administrative and criminal proceedings has long been a bottleneck constraining the effectiveness of combating food safety crimes. A report by China National Radio (CNR) noted that the “Opinions” systematically improve procedures regarding case referrals, evidence conversion, reverse coordination, and information sharing, directly addressing bottlenecks such as “substituting fines for criminal penalties,” “no criminal prosecution, no penalty,” “broken evidence chains,” and “information silos.”

Attorney Tang Jianbin believes that the “Opinions” focus on opening up two-way channels for the coordination between administrative and criminal proceedings, which can significantly reduce the scope for using fines in lieu of criminal prosecution:

First, the rigidity of case referrals has been strengthened; the “Opinions” clarify the supervisory procedures and administrative liabilities for cases that should be referred but are not, thereby reducing the practice of administrative agencies closing cases by imposing reduced fines;

Second, the rules for converting evidence have been clarified, standardizing the use and supplementation of documents such as on-site records and sampling materials, thereby resolving the difficulty in transitioning administrative evidence into criminal evidence;

Third, the mechanism for forensic examination and appraisal has been standardized, addressing the pain points of difficulties in obtaining appraisals, slow appraisal processes, and a shortage of appraisal institutions.

However, he also acknowledged that this issue cannot yet be completely eradicated; practical constraints such as discrepancies between administrative and criminal standards, the capacity of grassroots-level case handling, and the uneven distribution of forensic resources still persist. The effectiveness of policy implementation ultimately depends on whether the referral mechanism, rules of evidence, forensic resources, and grassroots-level case-handling capacity can be synchronized and coordinated. For legal practitioners, this represents both an opportunity to serve and a professional challenge.

IV. No “One-Size-Fits-All” Joint Liability for New Business Models:

Clarifying the Boundaries of Liability for Live-Streamed E-commerce and Fresh Produce E-commerce

Regarding online food business models such as live-streamed e-commerce and fresh produce e-commerce, Attorney Tang Jianbin stated that the boundaries of liability for each party should be clarified, adhering to the principles of “primary responsibility of the operator, liability based on conduct, and no ‘one-size-fits-all’ joint liability”: merchants operating on the platform are the primary liable parties; Live streamers and MCN agencies deeply involved in product selection and inventory control are considered co-operators; online platforms bear liability for negligence based on their statutory review obligations, and must assume corresponding liability if they knowingly or should have known of illegal activities yet still provided traffic support.

At the same time, supporting mechanisms for collaborative case handling should be established to streamline jurisdictional connections, mandate the retention of electronic traceability records, and create cross-regional joint supervision mechanisms to eliminate regulatory blind spots across regions. For platforms, live streamers, MCN agencies, and merchants, this means that “traffic cooperation” cannot replace “allocation of responsibility”; processes such as product selection, inventory control, review, and record-keeping will all serve as crucial factual bases for determining liability.

Strict enforcement does not mean strictness beyond the law; the key lies in implementation in accordance with the law

In a report by China National Radio Network, interviewed experts also cautioned that “strict enforcement throughout the entire process” means strict enforcement in accordance with the law, not strict enforcement outside the law; “strict control over suspended sentences” does not mean a blanket ban on suspended sentences. Specific application should still be based on a comprehensive assessment of factors such as the nature, method, means, harmful consequences, and social impact of the offense, while upholding the principles of legality of criminal offenses and punishment, the presumption of innocence, the exclusion of illegal evidence, and the principle of proportionality, and strictly adhering to the bottom line of the rule of law.

Food is the people’s top priority, and food safety is the most fundamental aspect of people’s livelihoods. Attorney Tang Jianbin noted that the issuance of the “Opinions” sends a strong signal that the state is using legal means to safeguard the public’s “safety on the tip of the tongue.” As the system is gradually implemented, the level of rule-of-law-based and routine governance in the field of food safety will continue to improve. For food production and operation enterprises, this should also serve as an opportunity to improve internal criminal risk prevention and control, proactively operate in compliance with the law, and avoid criminal legal risks.