Takeaway, online shopping, imported food safety who is responsible?

Original title: takeaway, online shopping, import food safety who is responsible?
December 9, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference to issue the "Explanation of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Questions of the Law Applying to the Trial of Food Safety Civil Disputes" (I), which will come into effect on January 1, 2021. Beijing Youth Daily reporter learned that this explanation clearly food unqualified producers, operators can not shirk responsibility, provide free meals, safety responsibility can not be exempted, e-commerce sales of food safety issues, in the platform for businesses failed to fulfill the obligation to review, but also bear a shared responsibility, imported food must comply with China's relevant standards and requirements.
Specifically to online shopping and takeaway, Article 3 of the Interpretation stipulates that e-commerce platform operators do not register and review the real name of food operators in the platform in accordance with the law, or fail to fulfill the obligations of reporting and stopping the provision of online trading platform services in accordance with the law, so that the legitimate rights and interests of consumers are harmed, consumers have the right to claim that e-commerce platform operators and food operators within the platform bear incidental responsibility, so that e-commerce platform for consumers to put good food safety.
If the e-commerce platform operator does not meet food safety standards by marking the food sold by the self-employed business mode or if the food sold by the self-employed but actually carrying out the self-employed business does not meet the food safety standards, the consumer shall have the right to claim the liability of the e-commerce platform operator as a food operator. Although the e-commerce platform operators do not actually carry out their own business, but their logo is enough to mislead consumers, so that consumers believe that the e-commerce platform operators self-employed, consumers have the right to claim that e-commerce platform operators bear the liability as food operators, in order to strengthen the protection of online food consumers.
In addition, article 4 of the Interpretation provides that the food provided to the passenger by the carrier of public transport does not meet food safety standards and that the passenger has the right to claim the carrier's liability as a food producer or operator, and to make it clear that whether it is provided free of charge or paid, the carrier shall ensure the safety of the food provided and shall not defend it on the ground that the food is provided free of charge.
The Interpretation also provides for the problem of "black workshops" in practice, and if consumers claim punitive compensation for the production and sale of prepackaged food products that do not specify the name and address of the producer, the people's court shall support it and crack down on illegal activities in the production and operation of food products at the source.
"Explanation" pointed out that the production and operation of production operators did not clearly indicate the date of production, shelf life of pre-packaged food, consumers claim that producers or operators in accordance with the provisions of the Food Safety Law to bear punitive liability, the people's court shall support.
point of view
Punitive compensation for food safety is now in the final place
Article 148 of the Food Safety Law provides for a punitive compensation system, which has played an important role in maintaining food safety. The Interpretation clarifies the identification of "knowing" by the operator. According to article 148 of the Food Safety Law, an operator is liable for punitive liability only if he or she operates food that is knowingly not in conformity with food safety standards. Therefore, the operator's "knowing" judgment is crucial.
article 6 of the Interpretation is further clarified and made more operational by listing the bottom of the pocket. Article 6 lists the more common situations in judicial practice: 10 food products have passed the shelf life indicated but are still sold; In the above cases, the people's court shall support the consumer's claim that the operator constitutes "knowing" as stipulated in Article 148 of the Food Safety Law. At the same time, the bottom clause is provided to avoid omission.
the Interpretation makes it clear that punitive damages are not premised on causing personal injury to consumers. Punitive damages under article 148, paragraph 2, of the Food Safety Act do not require the premise of personal injury to consumers. Punitive damages under this paragraph may not necessarily be claimed in the event of personal injury to the consumer.
Article 10 of the Interpretation clearly stipulates that food does not meet food safety standards, that consumers claim that producers or operators bear punitive liability in accordance with the law, and that producers or operators defend them on the grounds that they have not caused personal injury to consumers, the people's court shall not support it in order to unify the criteria for adjudicatory and increase the protection of consumer rights and interests. (Reporter Zhang Xin)