[6] A shop owner was sentenced for using poppy shells; how should one adapt to inconsistent regulatory handling?

"Sichuan-style poached rat fish," "Youting crucian carp," "spicy hot pot"... these are favorite dishes for many. However, to attract repeat customers, some restaurant owners have resorted to underhanded tactics, illegally adding poppy shell powder to the base ingredients of these foods. Recently, the People's Court of Hechuan District, Chongqing, tried such a case.

The court, upon trial, ascertained that starting from 2013, Li and Chen, in pursuit of illegal profits, knowingly purchased poppy shells—a non-food raw material explicitly prohibited by the state from being added—from Yang and Tang, despite being fully aware of the prohibition. They crushed the poppy shells into powder and used it to prepare base ingredients and oil. Chen, at the "Yang's Ratfish Restaurant" he operated, and Li, at the "Hekou YouTing Crucian Carp Restaurant in Hechuan District" he operated, incorporated the base ingredients and oil mixed with poppy shell powder into dishes such as "Boiled Ratfish" and "YouTing Crucian Carp" for customer consumption. On June 12, 2014, and October 18, 2014, the Hechuan District Branch of the Chongqing Food and Drug Administration conducted inspections at Li's "Hekou YouTing Crucian Carp Restaurant in Hechuan District" and Chen's "Yang's Ratfish Restaurant," respectively, and extracted hot pot base ingredients, mixed spices, and other substances. Upon testing, morphine, narcotine, papaverine, and other substances were detected in the various spices and base ingredients extracted from both Li's and Chen's premises.

Recently, the Hechuan Court sentenced Li and Chen to one year of fixed-term imprisonment with a one-year and six-month suspended sentence, and imposed a fine of 20,000 yuan each, for the crime of producing and selling toxic and harmful food. During the probation period, Li and Chen are prohibited from engaging in food production, sales, and related activities.

(Hualong Net)

Multiple legal provisions govern poppy husk regulation, requiring comprehensive consideration and evidence-based law enforcement.

In practice, law enforcement authorities handle food safety cases involving suspected poppy shells in inconsistent ways—some result in fines, while others lead to criminal convictions. In fact, for the illegal addition of poppy shells to food, according to relevant legal provisions, producers may be charged with at least five separate offenses.

First, according to the Public Security Administration Punishments Law, anyone who illegally transports, buys or sells, stores, or uses a small amount of poppy shells shall be detained for not less than ten days but not more than fifteen days and may also be fined not more than 3,000 yuan; if the circumstances are relatively minor, the person shall be detained for not more than five days or fined not more than 500 yuan.

Secondly, according to the Food Safety Law, producers are suspected of using non-food raw materials to produce food, or adding chemicals other than food additives and other substances that may harm human health to food, or using recycled food as raw materials to produce food.

In addition, it may also involve three other charges under the Criminal Law, the Anti-Drug Law, and the Public Security Administration Punishments Law: "the crime of instigating, inducing, or deceiving others to take drugs," "the crime of illegal possession of drugs," and "the crime of producing or selling toxic or harmful food."

In practice, however, establishing the crime of producing or selling toxic or harmful food is not straightforward, and convictions for offenses such as "abetting, inducing, or deceiving others into drug use" or "illegal possession of drugs" require meeting specific quantitative and circumstantial thresholds. Each of these offenses has its own constitutive requirements, and criminal convictions demand extreme caution; even for public security penalties, evidence must be solid and sufficient. Therefore, the phenomenon of differing judgments in similar cases in reality is likely related to the "enforcement themes" of "campaign-style enforcement." The convicted cases may well be those that were made examples of during periods when food safety crimes were a key enforcement priority.

Therefore, when handling such cases, law enforcement agencies should conduct a comprehensive assessment in accordance with the law regarding producers who illegally add poppy shells to food, and enforce the law based on legal provisions and evidence. In theory, such cases may involve several of these charges, but in specific cases, it depends on the results of the investigation and the evidence. It is also necessary to avoid mechanical and simplistic law enforcement and crude “campaign-style enforcement,” otherwise the harm to society will be even greater.