A cooked meat product produced by a company was sampled by the inspection agency and showed that the content of sorbic acid and its potassium salt (calculated as sorbic acid) was 0.04g/kg, which did not meet the requirements of the enterprise standard indicated by the product. Acid and its potassium salt (calculated as sorbic acid) <0.005g/kg], but according to the requirements of Table 2 of GB 2760-2014 "Food Safety National Standards for the Use of Food Additives", sorbic acid and its potassium salt of cooked meat products The maximum use amount of sorbic acid is 0.075g/kg, that is, the content of sorbic acid and its potassium salt (calculated by sorbic acid) in the cooked meat products in accordance with the requirements of GB 2760-2014 "Food Safety National Standards for Use of Food Additives". 

Law enforcement officials have three different opinions as to whether food enterprise standards are food safety standards and violate enterprise standards but comply with national standards.

1. A company indicates on the outer packaging of the product that the standard for the production of cooked meat products is the enterprise standard, and it must be strictly implemented in accordance with the enterprise standard. The enterprise standard is mandatory for the enterprise and belongs to the food safety standard. The food in question does not meet the enterprise standards and violates Article 34 (13) of the Food Safety Law. It shall be punished in accordance with Article 124 of the Food Safety Law.

2. Enterprise standards are not mandatory and are not food safety standards. The behavior of the enterprise violates the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Product Quality Law, “conforming to the product standards indicated on the product or its packaging”, and should be characterized as “professional products with unqualified products”, in accordance with Article 50 of the Product Quality Law imposes penalties.

3.Enterprise standards are not mandatory and are not food safety standards. It should be characterized as "the label does not comply with the provisions of this Law" and is punished in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 125 of the Food Safety Law.

Firstly, Global Foodmate believes that enterprise standards are standards that should be adhered to by the company. However, they are not “enforced” standards at the legal level and therefore cannot be identified as “food safety standards” with strict regulatory implications. Therefore, I disagree with the first opinion.

Secondly, the Product Quality Law stipulates the legal responsibility for “unqualified products posing as qualified products”. Global Foodmate believes that “the producers are responsible for the label content provided by the food safety law” also includes the authenticity of the labels. Responsibility for accuracy (intrinsic quality compliance) and legitimacy (appearance). Because the special law is superior to the general law, it does not agree with the second opinion.

In summary, Global Foodmate believes that the behavior of the company involved should be characterized as food labeling none compliance with the provisions of the Food Safety Law. In accordance with Article 125, paragraph 1 (b), “production and operation of unlabeled prepackaged food, in the case of food additives or labels or instructions that do not comply with the provisions of this Law for food and food additives, penalties shall be imposed in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 125. Global Foodmate agrees with the third treatment.