50 New National Food Safety Standards Take Effect: How Should Food Enterprises Achieve Compliance on Acrylamide, Lead, and Tin Contamination? A Shenzhen Lawyer’s Interpretation
On September 22, 2026, the National Health Commission, together with the State Administration for Market Regulation, issued 50 national food safety standards and amendments. The core action of this round of standards revision is to substantially move the risk prevention and control checkpoint forward: for the first time, three mandatory process management standards were formulated—Specification for the Control of Acrylamide Contamination in Food, Specification for the Control of Lead Contamination in Food, and Specification for the Control of Tin Contamination in Tinplate Canned Food—while the standard for nutritional supplements for complementary foods was revised, a new Milk Protein standard was formulated, and 11 standards for testing methods for biotoxins were issued. For the food industry, this is not a simple addition of standards, but a substantive shift in regulatory logic from end-product testing to full-chain process control. For food production and operation enterprises, the boundaries of compliance obligations have been redrawn, and legal risks have shifted accordingly.
From Detection Limits to Process Control: The Legal Nature of Three Pollution Control Specifications Has Changed
In the past, when responding to food safety regulation, enterprises habitually focused on finished product factory inspection—as long as the final product met the limit standards, it was considered compliant. The three contamination control specifications issued this time are completely different in legal nature. They are not product standards but production process management standards, falling within the scope of “food safety standards” as stipulated in Article 26 of the Food Safety Law, and are mandatory and enforceable.
Taking the Specification for the Control of Acrylamide Contamination in Food as an example, the standard explicitly requires enterprises to reduce the content of reducing sugars and asparagine in raw and auxiliary materials, strictly control the temperature and time parameters for baking/frying during the processing of potato products, cereal products, and roasted coffee, and prevent excessive baking or frying. This means that even if the acrylamide content ultimately detected in a given batch of potato chips does not exceed the limit, if the regulatory authorities discover during an unannounced inspection that the enterprise has long used excessively high oil temperatures and excessive baking times, they may still determine, on the basis of this Specification, that it violates food safety standards and then apply Article 126 of the Food Safety Law to impose an administrative penalty.
The control chain of the Specification for the Control of Lead Contamination in Food is longer: from irrigation water and the soil environment to harvesting and sun-drying and mechanical drying, then to lead soldering repair of processing equipment and inspection of water pipelines, and even extending to packaging materials—on surfaces in direct contact with food, the use of printing ink or coatings should be minimized, and non-food products such as toy cards contained in packaging should have separate packaging. This, in effect, refines the requirements of Article 33 of the Food Safety Law concerning control of the food production and business operation process into specific provisions that are enforceable and for which liability can be pursued.
The Specification for the Control of Tin Contamination in Foods Canned in Tinplate precisely targets categories such as canned foods, infant foods, and canned beverages packaged in tinplate, and establishes systematic requirements for the quality of raw can materials, protection of the tin coating, weld seam repair coating, canning, and storage and transportation. High-acid foods such as canned strawberries and low-acid, high-temperature sterilized foods such as canned luncheon meat must use containers with a film laminate or coating. If enterprises continue to use non-compliant can materials, once tin migration exceeds the limit, they will not only face product recalls and administrative penalties, but may also trigger consumers to claim punitive damages under Article 148 of the Food Safety Law.
The Threefold Escalation of Corporate Compliance Obligations: Overlapping Administrative, Civil, and Criminal Risks
After these three standards take effect, the compliance pressure on food enterprises will not increase linearly; instead, the risks of three types of legal liability will be magnified simultaneously.
At the level of administrative liability, Article 124 of the Food Safety Law provides for penalties such as a fine of not less than ten times but not more than twenty times the value of the goods and revocation of licenses for producing or dealing in food with contaminants exceeding the limits set by food safety standards. After process control standards are implemented, even if the regulatory authorities do not detect any exceedance in the final product, so long as it is verified that the enterprise has failed to establish a process prevention and control system in accordance with the requirements, they may still first impose penalties under Article 126 of the Food Safety Law, including for “failure to establish a food safety management system as required.” As a major hub for food imports and distribution, Shenzhen has long seen relatively strong joint enforcement by the customs and market regulation authorities, and the probability of enterprises being held liable for “process violations” has risen significantly.
At the civil liability level, Article 1207 of the Civil Code establishes the punitive damages rule in product liability for knowingly continuing to manufacture or sell a product with a defect. If an enterprise knows that the risk of acrylamide formation is high but refuses to adjust its process, or knows that the can material does not meet film-coating requirements but continues to use it, once consumers suffer harm, the enterprise may face punitive damages in addition to actual losses. In product liability disputes heard by courts in Shenzhen in recent years, the determination of the knowledge element has become stricter, and internal company emails, production records, and quality inspection reports may all become key evidence to prove knowledge.
At the level of criminal liability, Article 143 of the Criminal Law, which covers the crime of producing or selling food that fails to meet safety standards, does not require actual harmful consequences; as long as the act is “sufficient to cause serious food poisoning accidents or other serious foodborne diseases,” it may constitute a criminal offense. The promulgation of process control standards provides judicial authorities with a clearer technical basis for determining whether an enterprise “knew” that food failed to meet safety standards. If an enterprise persistently violates acrylamide, lead, and tin contamination control standards, once a food safety incident occurs, the risk that the responsible persons will be held criminally liable cannot be underestimated.
Expansion of Testing Method Standards: Biotoxin Detection Capability Becomes a New Regulatory Lever
The 11 biotoxin testing method standards released this time cover multiple mycotoxins, beauvericin, enniatins, Alternaria toxins, aflatoxins of groups B and G, tetrodotoxin, etc., and support the Maximum Levels of Mycotoxins in Foods (GB 2761). For food companies, the expansion of testing method standards means more targeted and broader regulatory sampling inspections.
In the past, due to the lack of detection methods or insufficient sensitivity for some biotoxins, companies could hardly be effectively identified even when contamination risks existed. The new method standard fills multiple domestic and international gaps and can meet the need for simultaneous determination of multiple toxins. As a national food trade distribution hub, Shenzhen has a wide variety of imported foods and prepackaged foods. If companies lack a systematic understanding of background data on biotoxins in upstream raw materials, they can easily “hit a landmine” in regulatory sampling inspections.
From the perspective of legal practice, enterprises should promptly review their own testing capabilities against the new standards. If an enterprise’s laboratory does not have the testing conditions required by the new method standards, it is advisable to commission a qualified third-party testing institution to conduct regular screening and include the test reports in its compliance records. Once a dispute arises, complete testing records and process control ledgers are key evidence for proving that the enterprise has fulfilled its duty of reasonable care and for seeking a lighter or mitigated penalty.
Four Practical Suggestions for Compliance Implementation in Shenzhen Food Enterprises
In response to this round of standard upgrades, food production, import, and distribution enterprises in Shenzhen can take action at four levels.
First, immediately carry out a standard benchmarking self-inspection. Focus on reviewing the clauses directly relevant to the enterprise’s products in the three contamination control specifications for acrylamide, lead, and tin, and compare existing process parameters, raw material acceptance standards, and packaging material specifications item by item to produce a gap list.
Second, embed process control requirements into routine management systems. They must not exist only in documents; they must be implemented in specific links such as production records, temperature monitoring, equipment maintenance, and supplier audits. The legal value of process records lies in the fact that they serve both as proof of compliance and as core evidence for distinguishing "intent," "negligence," or "accident" when an incident occurs.
Third, focus on labeling and right-to-know compliance. The newly formulated Milk Protein standard explicitly requires standardized labeling. The revised complementary food nutritional supplement standard expands the applicable age to 72 months and sets maximum permitted levels for certain nutrients. Label non-compliance is a high-frequency penalty matter in the Shenzhen market, and corporate legal and quality control departments need to conduct joint reviews.
Fourth, establish a standing communication mechanism with specialized lawyers. Food safety standards are updated rapidly and are highly technical, making it difficult for enterprises to fully grasp the boundaries of legal risk through internal quality control teams alone. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long served Shenzhen food enterprises and supply chain platforms and has accumulated extensive practical experience in building food safety compliance systems, responding to administrative penalties, and representing clients in product liability disputes. It can provide compliance health checks and risk contingency planning for enterprises during periods of standard transition, helping them keep their footing amid regulatory upgrades.
Every upgrade of food safety standards represents a reshuffling of the industry. Companies that take the lead in making their compliance robust not only avoid legal risks but also gain a trust advantage in market competition.
