Responsive regulation and application of grading system in the regulation of food safety
Link to publisher version (URL)
The traditional "tit for tat" philosophy in the food safety regulatory regime has been proved ineffective in most cases. Rather, starting with persuasion, advice, and then escalating to more severe punishments for the continuing non-compliance of the regulation as suggested in the responsive regulation by Ayres and Braithwaite has been proved more effective in the food safety regulatory regime of some jurisdictions. Responsive regulation aims to increase responsibility among corporations. So, if a corporation shows responsibility, it should be rewarded, and if a corporation shows irresponsibility it should be reprimanded if necessary. There is no logic in seeing and treating every manufacturer the same, considering their regular compliance or regular non-compliance with regulation.
Furthermore, in a free market economy, food manufacturers have to compete everyday with their counterparts in regard to safety and standards. So, once they are rewarded for their compliance by upgrading their current grade, they can use this reward for their advertising, which will help their business flourish. Conversely, if any manufacturer shows irresponsibility and continuously produces unsafe and low quality food, it can be degraded from an upper to lower grade. However, even the lowest graded manufacturer will have to maintain the minimum standard of safety required by the state regulations. This concept can be called "responsibility ensures upgrading, irresponsibility risks degrading".
A qualitative research method has been used in this research, and extensive literature has been analyzed for reaching this suggestion. Thus, it can be argued that the application of grading system, along with the responsive regulation, can help to bring more effectiveness to food safety regulatory regimes.