The standard itself is no higher or lower. In addition, the incident also shows that in addition to the understanding of the standards themselves, consumers are also concerned about the process of standard-setting and the supervision of standards enforcement. In particular, the industry significance and implementation effect of private standards such as group standards.

The continuous fermentation of Haitian soy sauce "double standard" incident has aroused many concerns. According to a video shot by a netizen in Japan, Haitian soy sauce products listed in Japan have far fewer additives than domestic products. In response, Haitian replied that their products fully comply with national regulations, and the internal control standards of domestic and foreign products are consistent, and there is no "double standard". However, the response of the merchants did not dispel the doubts of consumers.

One of the main concerns of consumers is whether these food additives are safe. In this regard, the more consistent view of experts is that food additives should not be "demonized", as long as they meet national standards, safety can be guaranteed.

But there are few convincing answers to several other important questions. Including, is Haitian soy sauce suspected of "double standard", and if so, what may be the reasons behind it? As the industry leader, Haitian soy sauce is "their own standards to comply with"? Is Zero Add a gimmick? ... These issues involve the process of soy sauce, product types, as well as the formulation of relevant standards in the food industry, the mode of action.

The author can not give the answer about the soy sauce process; However, as a researcher of food industry safety law, we can provide a new perspective on the problem from three perspectives: the role of industry standards, the advancement of technology, and the transparency of consumption. If these three problems are not solved, consumers will continue to be caught in food-related safety scares, enterprises are also, do not know which company which product, at any time may be caught in the vortex of public opinion.

1. Uniformity and Differentiation of standards: Is there a difference between Chinese and foreign standards?

The role of standards can not only achieve uniformity, but also can be used for differentiated positioning. In order to protect the rights and interests of consumers and public interests, government regulators have adopted standard supervision, providing action norms for producers and operators through product standards with detailed specifications and performance standards with clear objectives. That is to say, do not meet the mandatory standards required by the official requirements, the products of producers and operators will not be able to enter the market. The standard supervision of food additives is a typical case. By regulating the scope and limit of use of food additives, ensure that the use of food additives meet the following requirements, such as not causing any health hazards to the human body, not covering up the deterioration of food, should not be the food itself or the quality defects in processing or adulterated, adulterated for the purpose of using food additives.

So how strong is China in regulating food safety? Is different regulatory standards a reason for the "double standard" controversy of Haitian soy sauce?

After the melamine case in 2008, China continued to improve its food safety legal system, laying a solid foundation for food safety supervision. As a mandatory technical specification, the national food safety standards clarify the requirements of food ingredients, production processes, testing methods and so on. Among them, the "National Standard for Food Safety - Standard for the use of food additives" (GB 2760-2014) stipulates the principles of the use of food additives, the varieties of food additives allowed to be used, the scope of use and the maximum use or residual amount of food additives.

In addition to domestic standards, the global flow of food trade also requires harmonized international standards to ensure that ingredients used, residues, etc., meet safety requirements. However, standards are not only a tool to guarantee safe products, but also an institutional barrier to trade across regions.

Therefore, on the one hand, standards-based safety regulation requires the efforts of governments in various countries and regions to promote the coordination of safety standards and avoid the mandatory standards of different regulatory jurisdictions becoming trade barriers to product circulation. Harmonized standards ensure that our soy sauce can be sold to other countries such as Japan, and products from other countries can be sold to China. Of course, the differences in consumer demand in various countries and the differences in the level of development of the food industry also require standards tailored to local conditions. However, this still requires scientific practice to ensure the objectivity of standards and avoid using them as barriers to trade. For example, the high level of standards does not preclude countries from raising market access barriers from environmental safety, animal welfare and other factors, including the use of food additives. This highlights the importance of harmonizing standards at the international or regional level to ensure the normal operation of international and domestic markets. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (COdex Alimentarius Commission) in the field of food plays this coordinating role, which involves the global harmonization of food additive standards.

It is worth mentioning that China is the only developing country to serve as the host country of the Codex Alimentarius Commission's two Committees on Food Additives and Pesticide Residues. This has undoubtedly increased China's voice in international rule-making.

On the other hand, the development of the industry and the competition of enterprises need to be "innovative" while ensuring the safety bottom line. This can also be done by differentiating standards to regulate products and behavior. The so-called first-class enterprises engage in standards, the pursuit of product excellence enterprises need to meet the consumer demand for classification and classification through high value-added, high-tech products, and with the help of standards to regulate internal production and operation and external communication and publicity. Whether it is the private standard led by the industry or enterprise in foreign countries, or the enterprise standard and group standard in China's standard system, its role is to provide institutional space for the differentiated competition between the industry and enterprises. The "standard" often mentioned in the discussion of Haitian soy sauce actually involves two sets of standards: national mandatory standards and market-led differentiation.

Therefore, the standard itself is not high or low, but because of the difference in the main body of the system and the mode of action, there are unified rigid requirements, and there are differentiated selection and application. In addition, this incident also shows that in addition to the understanding of the standards themselves, consumers are also concerned about the process of standard development and the supervision of standards implementation. In particular, the industry significance and implementation effect of private standards such as group standards.

Second, science and technology to the good: "zero addition" is superior to others?

From the laboratory to the marketplace, the application of science and technology not only brings innovative products and services, but also technological risks that threaten public safety. Therefore, the technical rules associated with the application of science and technology are not only a matter of self-discipline for the scientific community, but also a regulatory issue for the government to balance innovation incentives and security. One development of the latter is to integrate technical rules into mandatory legal rules or autonomous market, social rules, etc. At present, consumers can buy a variety of flavors and storable foods thanks to the development of the food industry and the application of food additives. From the perspective of the use and supervision of food additives, the institutional arrangements of countries and regions have differences in variety classification and regulatory means, and are also committed to the coordination of relevant standards.

In addition to standard regulation, the regulation of food additives also involves prior access, which requires science-based safety assessments to permit a food additive's market application. The license is not once and for all, and needs to be adjusted in accordance with technological development and market demand. In other words, the use of food additives should consider the principle of necessity, that is, in the case of achieving the desired effect, the amount of additives in food should be reduced as much as possible. At the same time, the unauthorized addition has always been the focus of the crackdown, especially the illegal addition that is harmful to physical health, China is a heavy blow, and constantly strengthen the criminal crackdown.

Given consumers' preference for natural foods, "additive free" foods are a new option for businesses to meet consumer expectations, and their realization requires producers to use technological advances to ensure that product safety and quality expectations can be met even without the use of food additives. As a market option, this is the commercial freedom of speech of the claimants. However, it needs to meet the basic requirements of ensuring the authenticity of the claim and not misleading consumers. That is to say, when the "no added" product is questioned, the questioned producer and operator need to prove the truth, otherwise they need to bear the corresponding responsibility.

At the same time, the claim of "no addition" is a differentiated choice of producers and operators rather than "superior", that is, it cannot lead to unfair competition by disparaging added products. Whether it is deceiving consumers or stigmatizing competitors, the consequences can worsen the business environment and increase consumer distrust of the products and industries involved. Like the Haitian incident, it seems to be a public relations crisis of a brand, but in fact, the food additives and soy sauce industry has been questioned by consumers.

Third, consumption transparency: post-public relations is not as good as prior communication

Finally, consumers are increasingly aware of their rights and social responsibilities. The ease of access to expertise and information also supports the expression of consumer participation. Consumption transparency can not only guarantee their own informed choices, but also urge producers and operators to pay attention to social equity and fulfill social responsibilities through consumption choices and public participation.

In the food industry, one manifestation of this development is consumer demand for transparency and openness in the food supply chain. As a response to the system, risk communication enables more and more experts to participate in science and technology exchanges to help consumers rationally understand the innovation and application of food science and technology. The exchange included institutional arrangements for regulating technological risks, such as standards and regulation of food additives. The process information is as important to the consumer as the conclusion.

Why China and Japan have different standard requirements on the same type of products, why enterprises can lead the development of standards... These issues also require long-term communication with consumers to facilitate rational analysis in times of crisis. From the perspective of system construction, risk communication is not only one-way knowledge dissemination, but also includes external participation in risk assessment and risk management, such as risk communication in the revision and formulation of standards. This means that consumers not only accept the rules, but also participate in setting them. Participation is the expression of interests and knowledge of the process, and it is also a mechanism to understand objections in advance and promote consensus.

Article source: Interface News