Study On The Application Of Punitive Damages System In China’s Food Safety Law

The punitive damages system amended in Article 148,paragraph 2,of the new Food Safety Law plays an important role in cracking down on illegal producers and operators.The system has great potential for development in the field of food safety.However,the development and problems coexist,and the system still has shortcomings.Based on the data statistics and case analysis of the judicial decisions applying Article 148,paragraph 2,of the Food Safety Law,this paper concludes that the application of the system has the following problems.Firstly,the constitutive requirements of the system need to be further clarified,including whether the subjects of rights include units,the "false buyer",the specific legal connotation of the operator’s subjective state,the basis for the determination of illegal acts and whether the damage results are the important elements.Then,the compensation calculation criteria and the fixed multiple discretion model stipulated in Article148,paragraph2,of the Food Safety Law are not very reasonable.Finally,in practice,too heavy consumer protection costs may result in abandoning rights.After research and analysis,this paper puts forward some suggestions to solve the dilemma of the application of the system.It clarifies the constituent elements and suggests expanding the application in the subject of rights.That is,both the "false buyer" and the unit have the right to claim punitive damages.Expansion is adopted to explain the subjective state of "knowing well",that is including gross negligence.The identification of illegal acts should be based on the comprehensive judgment of food safety standards and should be clear not to take the damage result as an important element.In order to improve the calculation model of compensation,we should adopt flexible discretion mode,that is,on the basis of synthesizing various considerations,give full play to the discretion of judges to determine the amount of compensation reasonably.The inversion rule of burden of proof and small suit procedure should be applied to reduce the cost of protecting consumers’ rights.