{"title":"Confronting standards-making in food safety: Standards recalibration and regulatory reforms in China’s dairy industry","authors":"Megan Tracy","doi":"10.1177/0920203x231212801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2012, the Beijing First Intermediate Court’s ruling reignited public controversy over a 2010 revision of China’s national raw milk standard. A consumer rights activist filed an open information application, requesting that China’s Ministry of Health disclose meeting minutes related to the revision. His request hinged on public perception that China’s dairy corporations helped lower quality and safety thresholds for domestic raw milk supplies, while the country still reeled from the 2008 melamine scandal. The case re-emerged as Chinese policymakers, seeking to strengthen and respond to domestic and international food safety concerns, crafted and revised standards and restructured government agencies to address shortcomings in the 2009 Food Safety Law. As the case unfolded, China was flexing its international power in standards-setting despite criticism of its domestic standards regime. Grounded in fieldwork conducted during this period, I trace the intersection and dissonance between standards, regulations, and best practices crafted by government institutions and private sector actors alongside their recalibration in practice. I use the 2010 revision debate to explore the efforts of scientific experts and government officials to convey the standard to different actors, not as acts of translation but rather as acts of transformation, as regulations and regulatory practices move across disparate sites and media.","PeriodicalId":45809,"journal":{"name":"China Information","volume":" 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China Information","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203x231212801","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In 2012, the Beijing First Intermediate Court’s ruling reignited public controversy over a 2010 revision of China’s national raw milk standard. A consumer rights activist filed an open information application, requesting that China’s Ministry of Health disclose meeting minutes related to the revision. His request hinged on public perception that China’s dairy corporations helped lower quality and safety thresholds for domestic raw milk supplies, while the country still reeled from the 2008 melamine scandal. The case re-emerged as Chinese policymakers, seeking to strengthen and respond to domestic and international food safety concerns, crafted and revised standards and restructured government agencies to address shortcomings in the 2009 Food Safety Law. As the case unfolded, China was flexing its international power in standards-setting despite criticism of its domestic standards regime. Grounded in fieldwork conducted during this period, I trace the intersection and dissonance between standards, regulations, and best practices crafted by government institutions and private sector actors alongside their recalibration in practice. I use the 2010 revision debate to explore the efforts of scientific experts and government officials to convey the standard to different actors, not as acts of translation but rather as acts of transformation, as regulations and regulatory practices move across disparate sites and media.
期刊介绍:
China Information presents timely and in-depth analyses of major developments in contemporary China and overseas Chinese communities in the areas of politics, economics, law, ecology, culture, and society, including literature and the arts. China Information pays special attention to views and areas that do not receive sufficient attention in the mainstream discourse on contemporary China. It encourages discussion and debate between different academic traditions, offers a platform to express controversial and dissenting opinions, and promotes research that is historically sensitive and contemporarily relevant.