鸭肉卷冒充牛肉卷、鸡腿变鸡翅根……校园食品安全典型案例公布

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has published a series of judicial interpretations and typical cases to enhance food safety in schools, particularly focusing on the protection of minors and addressing issues related to food safety violations in educational institutions [1][2][3]. Group 1: Judicial Interpretations and Legal Framework - The Supreme People's Court has issued several judicial interpretations to improve the legal framework for handling food safety criminal cases, particularly in schools and surrounding areas [1]. - The interpretations emphasize harsher penalties for food safety violations that target minors, reflecting a commitment to safeguarding student health [1][2]. Group 2: Typical Cases Overview - Eight typical cases related to food safety in schools have been selected for publication, covering criminal, civil, and administrative cases [1][2]. - The cases illustrate a comprehensive judicial approach to food safety, addressing issues from food suppliers to school canteens, and highlighting various types of violations [1][2]. Group 3: Case Highlights - Case 1: A restaurant owner was sentenced to seven years for using sodium nitrite in school meals, resulting in severe food poisoning among students [7][8]. - Case 2: A supplier was sentenced to seven months for selling duck meat disguised as beef to school canteens, with sales amounting to over 120,000 yuan [10][11]. - Case 3: An official was sentenced for embezzling funds intended for student nutrition programs by substituting chicken legs with cheaper chicken wings [14][15]. - Case 4: A school successfully terminated a contract with a food service provider due to repeated food safety violations [19][20]. - Case 5: A supermarket was ordered to pay punitive damages for selling expired food to students, highlighting the need for accountability in food retail [24][25]. - Case 6: A food supplier was penalized for providing rice with unclear production dates and false labeling, emphasizing the responsibility of producers for accurate product information [28][30]. - Case 7: A meat supplier faced penalties for selling pork contaminated with chloramphenicol, reinforcing the importance of compliance with food safety standards [33][34]. - Case 8: A court annulled an administrative penalty against companies involved in unlicensed food distribution, stressing the need for clear accountability in food service operations [38][39]. Group 4: Implications and Significance - The publication of these cases serves to deter food safety violations in schools and promotes a culture of accountability among food suppliers and service providers [1][2][3]. - The judicial interpretations and case outcomes reflect a commitment to the strict enforcement of food safety laws, particularly in protecting the health of minors [2][3].