
市场监管总局修订食品安全法草案,将小额违法行为的罚款由定额调整为倍数计算,以解决‘小过重罚’问题,体现执法既要有力度也要有温度的理念。
AI-generated summary
食品安全法在2015年修订时将罚款起点由2000元提高至5万元,但在执行中出现小额违法高额罚款的问题,如榆林毒芹菜案中20元芹菜被罚6.6万元。
避免“小过重罚” 法治“底色”是为民(一线行走)
让执法温度与力度并存,凝聚社会各界共识,共同守护好“舌尖上的安全”
市场监管总局10月10日发布的《中华人民共和国食品安全法(修订草案征求意见稿)》对罚款制度进行了调整,直面近年来食品安全领域备受争议的“小过重罚”难题。
“榆林毒芹菜案”就是一个典型案例。2022年,陕西榆林某蔬菜粮油店因购进7斤、货值约20元的芹菜,被监管部门抽检发现禁用农药,处以6.6万元罚款。公众对此普遍觉得“不对劲儿”,获利与罚款相差悬殊,即使合法,从朴素的情理出发也感觉“太重了”。近年来,这类违法情节轻、货值小、社会危害性有限,但罚款金额却与违法情节不相称的现象在全国范围内有一定普遍性。
为什么会出现这种情况?现行食品安全法在2015年修订时将罚款起点由原来的2000元提高至5万元,体现了“重典治乱”的立法思路,为维护食品安全发挥了重要作用。但执法实践中发现,以“货值金额一万元”为界,对不足一万元的处以5万元起步的定额罚款,对超过一万元的处以货值金额一定倍数的罚款。比如,同样的不合格食品,货值20元和9900元的违法行为情节和危害悬殊,最低罚款却都是5万元;而货值9900元与10100元的违法行为情节和危害几乎相同,后者按10倍计算罚款为10.1万元,是前者罚款的两倍多。
对“小过重罚”问题,立法、司法、执法部门高度重视。2025年初,市场监管总局发布“首违不罚清单”和“轻微免罚清单”,对12种首次违法和轻微违法行为不予处罚。此次修订草案征求意见稿将部分条款中“货值金额一万元”以下的罚款,由定额罚调整为倍数罚,比如货值20元的违法行为按一定倍数计算罚款,将更符合“过罚相当”原则,避免起罚点过高导致“小过重罚”。
“小过重罚”的涉案主体多为小摊小贩、个体工商户、小微企业。他们可能是一家夫妻店、一个小超市、一辆小餐车。对这些小微经营主体没有主观故意、社会危害性较低、情节比较轻微的违法行为,不宜“一刀切”地处以5万元以上的罚款。
从修订草案征求意见稿可以看出,对罚款制度的调整绝不是降低食品安全处罚标准,也不是对食品安全违法行为姑息与纵容,而是试图更准确地拿捏“过”与“罚”的分寸。对性质恶劣的严重违法行为,倍数罚的处罚力度更大,并保留吊销许可证、行政拘留等处罚措施;对轻微违法行为,处罚更加适度合理,实现了惩戒与教育相结合。
法治的“底色”是为民。处罚从不是目的,确保食品安全才是初心。让执法温度与力度并存,凝聚社会各界共识,共同守护好“舌尖上的安全”。
(作者为本报记者 林丽鹂)
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
食品安全法修订草案将在公众征求意见后正式实施
Likely · Within months

After consumers purchase insured services when sending express delivery, they have disputes with the express delivery company over the compensation standard when the goods are damaged. Express delivery companies lower compensation based on depreciation and other factors, while consumers believe that the insured price should be fully compensated. Experts pointed out that complex price protection rules, difficulty in providing evidence and vague compensation standards are the root causes of disputes. They suggested that the loss determination mechanism should be clarified and consumer education should be strengthened.

The Supreme People's Court, the People's Bank of China, the State Administration of Financial Supervision, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission jointly released six typical cases on the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of financial consumers and investors, covering financial lending, fund management, digital finance, personal insurance, securities investment and other fields, focusing on hot topics such as format clauses, fair transactions, suitability obligations, rights relief, and diversified dispute resolution, demonstrating the value of financial trials in guiding the high-quality development of the industry.

Pan Liang, a former deputy ministerial cadre of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, was suspected of accepting bribes and using his influence to accept bribes. After investigation by the National Supervisory Commission, he was transferred to the procuratorate for review and prosecution. The Supreme People's Procuratorate has made the arrest decision and designated the Huaibei City People's Procuratorate of Anhui Province to review and prosecute. Recently, the Huaibei Municipal People's Procuratorate has filed a public prosecution with the Huaibei Municipal Intermediate People's Court, accusing Pan Liang of taking advantage of his position to seek benefits for others and illegally receiving huge amounts of property.

Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the deliberation of the Constitutional Court for more than 300 days because they did not meet the "10 plus 9" threshold. After the judgment, they still issued negative legal opinions with the title of justice. Scholars Zhang Jiayin and Su Yantu pointed out that this behavior violated the ethics of judges and weakened the authority of the Constitutional Court. They warned that if it continues for a long time, it will affect its final judgment function.

Constitutional Court Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the review because they believed that the composition of the five-member court was illegal. However, after the judgment, they still issued legal opinions in the name of the justices arguing that the judgment was invalid. They contradicted the official judgment, causing confusion among the people and shaking judicial credibility. They also warned that if it became a routine, it would undermine judicial consistency standards and procedural justice.

The three chief justices of the Constitutional Court, Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei, refused to participate in the review for more than 300 days because they did not meet the legal review threshold. However, they later issued a "disagreeing legal opinion" in their own name and published it in "Taiwan Lawyer" and authorized Legal Source Legal Network to collect royalties. At the same time, they still used judicial terms such as the title of justice and "this seat", which triggered a controversy over judicial ethics and copyright property rights. Judicial circles have reported and requested investigation.