社会主义市场经济本质上是法治经济。 青海海东市某县的村民新建了房子，为了生活方便，就从华某燃气器具公司（简称"华某公司"）购买并安装了燃气壁挂锅炉。可他向在该县唯 一经营天然气供气业务的川某石油天然气公司（简称"川某公司"）申请接通天然气时，却被拒绝了。 原来，川某公司要求，当地村民必须在其指定的当地某燃气服务部购买、安装壁挂锅炉，否则不予接入天然气。 面对这样的"霸王条款"，华某公司和消费者该如何维权？司法机关如何破除地方保护？ （二） 中央经济工作会议提出，"推动平台企业和平台内经营者、劳动者共赢发展""鼓励支持灵活就业人员、新就业形态人员参加职工保险"。 近年来，网约车、外卖配送、网络直播等新就业形态不断涌现。新型用工模式下，平台企业与从业人员之间的关系呈现出诸多特殊性。如何处 理好这些新问题，考验司法机关的智慧。 12月10日至11日，中央经济工作会议举行。本期"说法"，聚焦中央经济工作会议的重要部署，从三个案例，看如何运用法治思维和法治方式， 护航经济发展中影响你我的那些身边事。 （一） 中央经济工作会议强调，"纵深推进全国统一大市场建设""制定全国统一大市场建设条例，深入整治'内卷式'竞争"。 当 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of food safety in schools and highlights typical cases of violations to deter illegal activities related to food safety in educational institutions [2]. Group 1: Case Summaries - Case 1: A defendant was sentenced to 7 years in prison for adding sodium nitrite to school lunches, resulting in food poisoning for 56 students [3][4][6]. - Case 2: A defendant was sentenced to 7 months in prison for selling duck meat disguised as beef to a university cafeteria, with sales amounting to over 120,000 yuan [7][8]. - Case 3: A defendant was sentenced to 3 years in prison for embezzling 547,000 yuan from a student nutrition program by substituting chicken legs with wings and falsely reporting expenses [10][12]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The court's decisions reflect a strict stance against food safety violations in schools, aiming to protect students' health and deter similar crimes [6][12]. - The use of sodium nitrite, while permitted in certain meat products, is heavily regulated, and violations can lead to severe legal consequences [5][6]. - The cases illustrate the legal repercussions for fraudulent practices in food supply chains, emphasizing the need for compliance with food safety standards [8][12].

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has released eight typical cases related to food safety in schools to strengthen the judicial work on campus food safety and deter violations [1] - The cases cover criminal, civil, and administrative categories, involving various stakeholders from suppliers to regulatory bodies, and address issues such as food labeling, shelf life, and the use of inferior ingredients [1] Group 2 - A restaurant owner was sentenced for food poisoning caused by the illegal use of sodium nitrite in meals supplied to a primary school, resulting in 56 students being hospitalized [2][3] - The court found that the defendant's actions constituted the crime of producing and selling food that does not meet safety standards, leading to a seven-year prison sentence and a fine [2] Group 3 - A supplier was convicted for selling duck meat disguised as beef to school cafeterias, resulting in a sentence of seven months in prison and a fine of 100,000 yuan [4] - The defendant's actions were classified as selling inferior products, highlighting the legal consequences of food fraud in educational institutions [4] Group 4 - A financial manager involved in the rural compulsory education student nutrition improvement program was sentenced for embezzling funds by substituting chicken legs with chicken wings, illegally obtaining over 543,000 yuan [5] - The court ruled that the defendant's actions constituted embezzlement due to the misuse of entrusted funds, resulting in a three-year prison sentence and a fine of 200,000 yuan [5]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court of China released typical cases related to food safety in schools, highlighting issues from suppliers to regulatory bodies, including expired food and inferior ingredients [1][2] - A specific case involved an individual named Luo, who sold fake beef products made from duck meat, generating over 120,000 yuan in illegal profits [1][2] Group 1: Food Safety Issues - The case illustrates the use of low-cost duck meat disguised as higher-priced beef or lamb, with perpetrators using additives to mimic the taste of beef or lamb [2] - The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of food safety in school canteens, urging stricter supervision and the selection of qualified suppliers during food procurement [2] Group 2: Legal Consequences - Luo was sentenced to seven months in prison and fined 100,000 yuan for selling inferior products, with the court highlighting the punitive role of criminal law in such cases [2] - The law stipulates that selling inferior products with a total sales amount exceeding 50,000 yuan but less than 200,000 yuan can result in imprisonment of up to two years or detention [2]

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].

Core Viewpoint - The absence of "fatty pork rolls" in the hot pot market is attributed to the inherent characteristics of pork compared to beef, which make it less suitable for thin slicing and quick cooking methods like hot pot [4][10]. Group 1: Characteristics of Meat Rolls - There are two main types of beef rolls: original cut beef rolls, which are pure beef without additives, and restructured meat rolls, which are made from various parts of the animal combined with additives [2][11]. - Original cut meat rolls are preferred for hot pot due to their ability to cook quickly and maintain texture, while pork does not perform well in this regard due to its loose muscle fiber structure [4][6]. Group 2: Comparison of Pork and Beef - Pork's muscle fiber bundles are more loosely arranged than those of beef, making it difficult to slice thinly without falling apart [4][6]. - The tensile strength of pork is lower than that of beef, which affects its ability to maintain shape when sliced thinly [7]. - Beef has a higher content of connective tissue, which contributes to its juiciness and ability to retain moisture compared to pork [7][8]. Group 3: Safety Concerns - Pork is associated with a higher risk of trichinosis due to the presence of Trichinella spiralis, making it less suitable for cooking methods that do not ensure thorough cooking [8][9]. - The recommended cooking temperature for pork to eliminate parasites is higher than what is typically achieved in hot pot cooking [8][9]. Group 4: Market Dynamics - The cost of beef is significantly higher than that of pork, leading to the prevalence of restructured meat products that may use pork or other meats disguised as beef [14][15]. - The use of transglutaminase in restructured meat production has blurred the lines between different types of meat, making it difficult for consumers to discern the actual content [12][13].