# Transparent Assessment of the Supervision Information in China’s Food Safety: A Fuzzy-ANP Comprehensive Evaluation Method

Authors: Tingqiang Chen; Lei Wang; Jining Wang
Journal: Journal of Food Quality
 (2017)

---

## Abstract

Improving transparency of food safety supervision information can reduce the occurrence of information asymmetry, decrease food safety incidents, and promote socially joint regulation for food safety. In this study, an index system of food safety supervision information transparency (FSSIT) is constructed using the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model. Using this system, the FSSIT in China is evaluated. A total of 1651 questionnaires containing 139525 data are collected from food and drug administration (FDA), consumer association (CA), and media at the central, provincial, prefectural, and county levels. Empirical results indicate that the FSSIT achieves a qualified level; however, the works of FDA, CA, and media still present deficiencies. The information transparency in the entirety presents deficiencies and gradually declines when that in the administrative level decreases. The economic development level indirectly determines the transparency level, and the transparency level does not conform to China’s current economic development level.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The State Council of the People’s Republic of China issued arrangements on food safety work in 2016, and these provisions put emphasis on improving the information disclosure mechanism, promoting the construction of major information technology projects, and accelerating socially joint regulation for food safety. These arrangements highlight China’s attention to food safety and its information transparency.Information of food safety supervision directly affects the public trust in all kinds of food safety information [1, 2]. In the degree of food safety supervision information transparency (FSSIT), information transparency mainly refers to the fact that stakeholders have convenient access to the information [3, 4], while food safety means food causes no harm to human health [5, 6]. From the perspective of a consumer, transparency of food safety information is the way to achieve its supervision [7]. An important task in supervising transparency of food safety information is the realization of FSSIT [8]. The behavior of food companies can be improved and the possibility of the supervision department dereliction can be reduced through the collective reputation mechanism [9–12].The gradual development of research on food safety supervision has shown that the information asymmetry of food safety supervision cannot be effectively reduced only by supervision of the government and self-discipline of food companies [13]. An effective solution is to construct a mode of socially joint regulation for food safety such that all food safety supervision subjects can effectively and rationally participate in the governance of food safety [2, 14, 15].At present, the domestic and international research on FSSIT is very rare. A latest research builds China’s index system of food safety supervision transparency to evaluate its level in China’s food safety supervision departments [16, 17]. However, the evaluation subjects are supervision departments not social supervision subjects. Moreover, the investigation content does not contain food safety supervision at the county level. Meeting the country’s requirements of building a highly efficient and socially joint management system is difficult. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic study on FSSIT in China is still lacking.In light of the above considerations, the index system of FSSIT is established in this study using the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model and on the basis of the laws and regulations of China’s food safety supervision and existing literature analysis. A total of 1651 questionnaires containing 139525 data are collected from food and drug administration (FDA), consumer association (CA), and media (in this paper, food and drug administration (FDA) refers to the government departments responsible for the supervision of food and drug administration, consumer association (CA) refers to the organizations that protect the interests of consumers, and media refers to newspapers, news websites, and the We-media) at the central, provincial, prefectural, and county levels. On the basis of these data, the FSSIT level is evaluated. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section2 presents the setup of the FSSIT index system. Section 3 introduces the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model and analyzes its applicability. Section 4 discusses an empirical research based on 1651 questionnaires containing 139525 data from FDA, CA, and media at the central, provincial, prefectural, and county levels. Section 5 discusses and analyzes the results of the empirical study. Finally, Section 6 summarizes and elaborates the conclusions of the study.


## 2. Construction of Evaluation Index System

FDA, CA, and media are the food safety supervision subjects in China and are the main publishers of FSSIT in the country. The information released by these bodies has wide coverage and high degree of public recognition. Food safety is the most basic livelihood project, but the public’s access right to food safety information depends mainly on FDA, CA, and media. In addition, other subjects of food safety supervision still present problems, such as independent supervision and unreasonable supervision system [18]. Therefore, consumer and other supervision subjects of food safety present a limited effect on FSSIT. On this basis, this study evaluates China’s FSSIT from three dimensions only: government, CA, and media.


### 2.1. FSSIT of Government

The government plays a leading role in food safety supervision works such that low level of supervision information transparency negatively affects its reputation [12]. These adverse effects are mainly as follows. First, FDA cannot fully obtain comprehensive information from food companies and implement the supervision work owing to its own conditions [19–22]. Accordingly, food companies may utilize food safety supervision loopholes to harm the interests of consumers [23]. In this case, the supervisees capture supervisors, government supervision becomes disordered [24], and the reputation of FDA becomes damaged. Second, the supervision information of government is relatively nontransparent; thus, FDA easily experiences group trust crisis in case of food safety incident [25–27]. Therefore, the following four aspects can be considered in improving the FSSIT of government.


#### 2.1.1. Food Safety Information Platform of Government

Openness is the basis of transparency. The government sets up an effective food safety information platform that can show the transparency of the supervision process. The platform ensures public’s access right to food safety information [28, 29] improves the efficiency of public’s access to information [12], and publicizes food safety knowledge [30]. According to the existing research results and the “Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China” (food safety law hereinafter), the food safety information platform of government should be subdivided into 13 indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are overall situation of food safety information, guiding information of supervision information, supervision information directory, key supervision information, food safety standard information, food safety risk warning information, information on administrative punishment for food safety issues, qualification accreditation information of food inspection agencies, name list of food safety inspection agencies, name list of production and business licenses, certification information of company quality system, supervision organization structure and personnel information, and food safety credit file information [31–37].


#### 2.1.2. Food Safety Accident Emergency Information of Government

The emergency handling capability of FDA on food safety accidents directly reflects its administrative efficiency [38]. Any serious problem in information transparency of food safety accident can result in vicious rumor of “herd instinct.” Therefore, FDA should maintain a sufficient transparency of food safety accident emergency information to reduce the rumor. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the food safety accident emergency information of government should be subdivided into six indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are food safety accident classification, accident disposal commanding system and responsibility information, prevention and warning mechanism information, disposal procedure information, emergency safeguarding measure information, and accident investigation and disposal information [31, 34, 35, 38].


#### 2.1.3. Food Safety Sampling Information of Government

China’s inspection system of food safety supervision has clearly stipulated that FDA must disclose the inspection results [35]. The sampling information of FDA is a dynamic quality testing content and is the most important information that FDA needs to disclose [31]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” government food safety sampling information should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are sampling object information, sampling qualified information, and sampling unqualified information [31, 34, 35].


#### 2.1.4. Information for Safeguarding the Government Supervision Mechanism

FDA needs a clear, transparent mechanism to safeguard food safety supervision. This mechanism can promote the responsibility clarification and enhance public awareness on FDA and is an important step to improve the FSSIT of government. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the information for safeguarding the government supervision mechanism should be subdivided into five indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are open management mechanism information of supervision information, annual report for disclosure supervision, report processing information, supervision responsibility mechanism information, and supervision evaluation mechanism information [31, 34, 35, 38, 39].


### 2.2. FSSIT of CA

Problems in food safety and its supervision are characterized by sociality. However, the traditional model of “single food safety supervision” is monopolized by the government and excludes public supervision; thus, this model presents low supervision efficiency and poor supervision information transparency. According to the empirical study on the American food safety supervision, government supervision insignificantly reduces the outbreak of foodborne diseases [40]. Therefore, the construction of socially joint regulation mode for food safety [41] is an effective way to reduce the probability of food safety problems and improve the entire FSSIT [35]. CA is an important force in socially joint regulation for food safety. Accordingly, this study improves the FSSIT of CA mainly from the following three aspects.


#### 2.2.1. Supervision Information of CA

Participation of CA in food safety supervision can reduce the information asymmetry of food safety and improve the efficiency of public participation [31]. Moreover, CA can use the social punishment effect to produce a deterrent against the illegal behavior of food companies [12]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the supervision information of CA should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are supervision mechanism information, supervision organization structure and personnel composition, and supervision evaluation information [27, 31, 35, 39, 42].


#### 2.2.2. Integrity Building Information of CA

The important works of CA are to conduct integrity building [43], regulate the behavior of food companies, and warn consumers through the “black name list system,” credit rating, and other means. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the integrity building information of CA should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are integrity building standard information, name list of accredited company brands, and name list of nonaccredited company brands [27, 31, 35, 39, 42, 43].


#### 2.2.3. Information for Safeguarding the Supervision Mechanism of CA

Sound supervision mechanism must be developed to improve the supervision efficiency of CA. The social supervision function of CA can best embody the supervision role [38]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the information for safeguarding the supervision mechanism of CA should be subdivided into five indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are social supervision function information, annual report for disclosure supervision, management mechanism for disclosing supervision information, supervision responsibility mechanism, and perfect degree and operation situation of food safety information platform [27, 31, 35, 39, 42].


### 2.3. FSSIT of Media

Media is also an important force in socially joint regulation for food safety. As one of the main publishers of food safety information, media plays an irreplaceable role in the food safety social supervision. Media involves in socially joint regulation to improve the supervision efficiency of food safety [27, 44] and protect the public’s access right to food safety information. Therefore, this study improves the FSSIT of media mainly from the following two aspects.


#### 2.3.1. Supervision Information of Media

Media plays a unique role in the exposure of food safety problems. During the “Sanlu milk powder” incident or the “Shuanghui clenbuterol” incident, media expanded the influence through the report in the early stage and then continued to place pressure on the government supervision work by tracking reports in the later stage [27]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the supervision information of media should be subdivided into four indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are food safety incident reports, food safety incident tracking reports, authenticity and impartiality of food safety report, and social supervision function information of media [27, 31, 35, 39, 43].


#### 2.3.2. Food Safety Publicity of Media

The promotion of laws, regulations, standards, and knowledge on food safety relies on media. However, the present performance of media in this area is relatively weak and needs to be strengthened. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” food safety publicity of media should be subdivided into two indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are publicity of food safety laws and regulations and publicity of food safety standards and knowledge [27, 31, 35, 39, 43].By combining the experts’ opinion (the Delphi expert group consists of 15 experts, including 6 food safety management professors from colleges and universities, 3 FDA experts, 2 food safety media experts, 2 CA experts, and 2 food business experts) using the Delphi method, the index system of FSSIT is constructed and is shown in Table1.Table 1
Index system of FSSIT.
Objective
First-level index
Second-level index
Third-level index
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Information platform of food safety of government (C1)
Overall situation of food safety information (C11)
Guiding information for supervision information (C12)
Supervision information disclosing directory (C13)
Key information of supervision (C14)
Standard information of food safety (C15)
Warning information of food safety risk (C16)
Information on administrative punishment of food safety issue (C17)
Qualification accreditation information of food inspection agency (C18)
Name list of food safety inspection agencies (C19)
Name list of production and business licenses (C110)
Certification information of company quality system (C111)
Supervision organization structure and personnel composition information (C112)
Food safety credit file information (C113)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Food safety accident emergency information of government (C2)
Food safety accident classification information (C21)
Accident disposal organization and commanding system and responsibility information (C22)
Prevention and warning mechanism information (C23)
Disposal procedure information (C24)
Emergency and safeguarding information (C25)
Accident investigation and disposal information (C26)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Food safety sampling information of government (C3)
Sampling object information (C31)
Sampling qualified information (C32)
Sampling unqualified information (C33)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Information for safeguarding the government supervision mechanism (C4)
Open management information of supervision information (C41)
Annual report for supervision information (C42)
Report processing information (C43)
Supervision responsibility mechanism information (C44)
Supervision evaluation mechanism information (C45)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Supervision information of CA (C5)
Supervision mechanism information (C51)
Supervision organization structure and personnel composition information (C52)
Supervision evaluation information (C53)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Integrity building information of CA (C6)
Integrity building standard information (C61)
Name list of accredited company brands (C62)
Name list of non-accredited company brands (C63)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Information for safeguarding the supervision mechanism of CA (C7)
Information of social supervision function (C71)
Disclosure annual report of the supervision information (C72)
Disclosure management mechanism information of supervision information (C73)
Supervision responsibility mechanism information (C74)
Perfect degree and operation situation of food safety information platform (C75)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of media(B3)
Supervision information of media (C8)
Food safety incident report (C81)
Food safety incident tracking report (C82)
Authenticity and impartiality of food safety report (C83)
Social supervision function information of media (C84)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of media(B3)
Publicity for food safety of media (C9)
Publicity of food safety laws and regulations (C91)
Publicity of food safety standards and knowledge (C92)


## 2.1. FSSIT of Government

The government plays a leading role in food safety supervision works such that low level of supervision information transparency negatively affects its reputation [12]. These adverse effects are mainly as follows. First, FDA cannot fully obtain comprehensive information from food companies and implement the supervision work owing to its own conditions [19–22]. Accordingly, food companies may utilize food safety supervision loopholes to harm the interests of consumers [23]. In this case, the supervisees capture supervisors, government supervision becomes disordered [24], and the reputation of FDA becomes damaged. Second, the supervision information of government is relatively nontransparent; thus, FDA easily experiences group trust crisis in case of food safety incident [25–27]. Therefore, the following four aspects can be considered in improving the FSSIT of government.


### 2.1.1. Food Safety Information Platform of Government

Openness is the basis of transparency. The government sets up an effective food safety information platform that can show the transparency of the supervision process. The platform ensures public’s access right to food safety information [28, 29] improves the efficiency of public’s access to information [12], and publicizes food safety knowledge [30]. According to the existing research results and the “Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China” (food safety law hereinafter), the food safety information platform of government should be subdivided into 13 indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are overall situation of food safety information, guiding information of supervision information, supervision information directory, key supervision information, food safety standard information, food safety risk warning information, information on administrative punishment for food safety issues, qualification accreditation information of food inspection agencies, name list of food safety inspection agencies, name list of production and business licenses, certification information of company quality system, supervision organization structure and personnel information, and food safety credit file information [31–37].


### 2.1.2. Food Safety Accident Emergency Information of Government

The emergency handling capability of FDA on food safety accidents directly reflects its administrative efficiency [38]. Any serious problem in information transparency of food safety accident can result in vicious rumor of “herd instinct.” Therefore, FDA should maintain a sufficient transparency of food safety accident emergency information to reduce the rumor. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the food safety accident emergency information of government should be subdivided into six indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are food safety accident classification, accident disposal commanding system and responsibility information, prevention and warning mechanism information, disposal procedure information, emergency safeguarding measure information, and accident investigation and disposal information [31, 34, 35, 38].


### 2.1.3. Food Safety Sampling Information of Government

China’s inspection system of food safety supervision has clearly stipulated that FDA must disclose the inspection results [35]. The sampling information of FDA is a dynamic quality testing content and is the most important information that FDA needs to disclose [31]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” government food safety sampling information should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are sampling object information, sampling qualified information, and sampling unqualified information [31, 34, 35].


### 2.1.4. Information for Safeguarding the Government Supervision Mechanism

FDA needs a clear, transparent mechanism to safeguard food safety supervision. This mechanism can promote the responsibility clarification and enhance public awareness on FDA and is an important step to improve the FSSIT of government. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the information for safeguarding the government supervision mechanism should be subdivided into five indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are open management mechanism information of supervision information, annual report for disclosure supervision, report processing information, supervision responsibility mechanism information, and supervision evaluation mechanism information [31, 34, 35, 38, 39].


## 2.1.1. Food Safety Information Platform of Government

Openness is the basis of transparency. The government sets up an effective food safety information platform that can show the transparency of the supervision process. The platform ensures public’s access right to food safety information [28, 29] improves the efficiency of public’s access to information [12], and publicizes food safety knowledge [30]. According to the existing research results and the “Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China” (food safety law hereinafter), the food safety information platform of government should be subdivided into 13 indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are overall situation of food safety information, guiding information of supervision information, supervision information directory, key supervision information, food safety standard information, food safety risk warning information, information on administrative punishment for food safety issues, qualification accreditation information of food inspection agencies, name list of food safety inspection agencies, name list of production and business licenses, certification information of company quality system, supervision organization structure and personnel information, and food safety credit file information [31–37].


## 2.1.2. Food Safety Accident Emergency Information of Government

The emergency handling capability of FDA on food safety accidents directly reflects its administrative efficiency [38]. Any serious problem in information transparency of food safety accident can result in vicious rumor of “herd instinct.” Therefore, FDA should maintain a sufficient transparency of food safety accident emergency information to reduce the rumor. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the food safety accident emergency information of government should be subdivided into six indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are food safety accident classification, accident disposal commanding system and responsibility information, prevention and warning mechanism information, disposal procedure information, emergency safeguarding measure information, and accident investigation and disposal information [31, 34, 35, 38].


## 2.1.3. Food Safety Sampling Information of Government

China’s inspection system of food safety supervision has clearly stipulated that FDA must disclose the inspection results [35]. The sampling information of FDA is a dynamic quality testing content and is the most important information that FDA needs to disclose [31]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” government food safety sampling information should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are sampling object information, sampling qualified information, and sampling unqualified information [31, 34, 35].


## 2.1.4. Information for Safeguarding the Government Supervision Mechanism

FDA needs a clear, transparent mechanism to safeguard food safety supervision. This mechanism can promote the responsibility clarification and enhance public awareness on FDA and is an important step to improve the FSSIT of government. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the information for safeguarding the government supervision mechanism should be subdivided into five indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are open management mechanism information of supervision information, annual report for disclosure supervision, report processing information, supervision responsibility mechanism information, and supervision evaluation mechanism information [31, 34, 35, 38, 39].


## 2.2. FSSIT of CA

Problems in food safety and its supervision are characterized by sociality. However, the traditional model of “single food safety supervision” is monopolized by the government and excludes public supervision; thus, this model presents low supervision efficiency and poor supervision information transparency. According to the empirical study on the American food safety supervision, government supervision insignificantly reduces the outbreak of foodborne diseases [40]. Therefore, the construction of socially joint regulation mode for food safety [41] is an effective way to reduce the probability of food safety problems and improve the entire FSSIT [35]. CA is an important force in socially joint regulation for food safety. Accordingly, this study improves the FSSIT of CA mainly from the following three aspects.


### 2.2.1. Supervision Information of CA

Participation of CA in food safety supervision can reduce the information asymmetry of food safety and improve the efficiency of public participation [31]. Moreover, CA can use the social punishment effect to produce a deterrent against the illegal behavior of food companies [12]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the supervision information of CA should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are supervision mechanism information, supervision organization structure and personnel composition, and supervision evaluation information [27, 31, 35, 39, 42].


### 2.2.2. Integrity Building Information of CA

The important works of CA are to conduct integrity building [43], regulate the behavior of food companies, and warn consumers through the “black name list system,” credit rating, and other means. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the integrity building information of CA should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are integrity building standard information, name list of accredited company brands, and name list of nonaccredited company brands [27, 31, 35, 39, 42, 43].


### 2.2.3. Information for Safeguarding the Supervision Mechanism of CA

Sound supervision mechanism must be developed to improve the supervision efficiency of CA. The social supervision function of CA can best embody the supervision role [38]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the information for safeguarding the supervision mechanism of CA should be subdivided into five indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are social supervision function information, annual report for disclosure supervision, management mechanism for disclosing supervision information, supervision responsibility mechanism, and perfect degree and operation situation of food safety information platform [27, 31, 35, 39, 42].


## 2.2.1. Supervision Information of CA

Participation of CA in food safety supervision can reduce the information asymmetry of food safety and improve the efficiency of public participation [31]. Moreover, CA can use the social punishment effect to produce a deterrent against the illegal behavior of food companies [12]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the supervision information of CA should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are supervision mechanism information, supervision organization structure and personnel composition, and supervision evaluation information [27, 31, 35, 39, 42].


## 2.2.2. Integrity Building Information of CA

The important works of CA are to conduct integrity building [43], regulate the behavior of food companies, and warn consumers through the “black name list system,” credit rating, and other means. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the integrity building information of CA should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are integrity building standard information, name list of accredited company brands, and name list of nonaccredited company brands [27, 31, 35, 39, 42, 43].


## 2.2.3. Information for Safeguarding the Supervision Mechanism of CA

Sound supervision mechanism must be developed to improve the supervision efficiency of CA. The social supervision function of CA can best embody the supervision role [38]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the information for safeguarding the supervision mechanism of CA should be subdivided into five indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are social supervision function information, annual report for disclosure supervision, management mechanism for disclosing supervision information, supervision responsibility mechanism, and perfect degree and operation situation of food safety information platform [27, 31, 35, 39, 42].


## 2.3. FSSIT of Media

Media is also an important force in socially joint regulation for food safety. As one of the main publishers of food safety information, media plays an irreplaceable role in the food safety social supervision. Media involves in socially joint regulation to improve the supervision efficiency of food safety [27, 44] and protect the public’s access right to food safety information. Therefore, this study improves the FSSIT of media mainly from the following two aspects.


### 2.3.1. Supervision Information of Media

Media plays a unique role in the exposure of food safety problems. During the “Sanlu milk powder” incident or the “Shuanghui clenbuterol” incident, media expanded the influence through the report in the early stage and then continued to place pressure on the government supervision work by tracking reports in the later stage [27]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the supervision information of media should be subdivided into four indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are food safety incident reports, food safety incident tracking reports, authenticity and impartiality of food safety report, and social supervision function information of media [27, 31, 35, 39, 43].


### 2.3.2. Food Safety Publicity of Media

The promotion of laws, regulations, standards, and knowledge on food safety relies on media. However, the present performance of media in this area is relatively weak and needs to be strengthened. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” food safety publicity of media should be subdivided into two indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are publicity of food safety laws and regulations and publicity of food safety standards and knowledge [27, 31, 35, 39, 43].By combining the experts’ opinion (the Delphi expert group consists of 15 experts, including 6 food safety management professors from colleges and universities, 3 FDA experts, 2 food safety media experts, 2 CA experts, and 2 food business experts) using the Delphi method, the index system of FSSIT is constructed and is shown in Table1.Table 1
Index system of FSSIT.
Objective
First-level index
Second-level index
Third-level index
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Information platform of food safety of government (C1)
Overall situation of food safety information (C11)
Guiding information for supervision information (C12)
Supervision information disclosing directory (C13)
Key information of supervision (C14)
Standard information of food safety (C15)
Warning information of food safety risk (C16)
Information on administrative punishment of food safety issue (C17)
Qualification accreditation information of food inspection agency (C18)
Name list of food safety inspection agencies (C19)
Name list of production and business licenses (C110)
Certification information of company quality system (C111)
Supervision organization structure and personnel composition information (C112)
Food safety credit file information (C113)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Food safety accident emergency information of government (C2)
Food safety accident classification information (C21)
Accident disposal organization and commanding system and responsibility information (C22)
Prevention and warning mechanism information (C23)
Disposal procedure information (C24)
Emergency and safeguarding information (C25)
Accident investigation and disposal information (C26)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Food safety sampling information of government (C3)
Sampling object information (C31)
Sampling qualified information (C32)
Sampling unqualified information (C33)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Information for safeguarding the government supervision mechanism (C4)
Open management information of supervision information (C41)
Annual report for supervision information (C42)
Report processing information (C43)
Supervision responsibility mechanism information (C44)
Supervision evaluation mechanism information (C45)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Supervision information of CA (C5)
Supervision mechanism information (C51)
Supervision organization structure and personnel composition information (C52)
Supervision evaluation information (C53)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Integrity building information of CA (C6)
Integrity building standard information (C61)
Name list of accredited company brands (C62)
Name list of non-accredited company brands (C63)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Information for safeguarding the supervision mechanism of CA (C7)
Information of social supervision function (C71)
Disclosure annual report of the supervision information (C72)
Disclosure management mechanism information of supervision information (C73)
Supervision responsibility mechanism information (C74)
Perfect degree and operation situation of food safety information platform (C75)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of media(B3)
Supervision information of media (C8)
Food safety incident report (C81)
Food safety incident tracking report (C82)
Authenticity and impartiality of food safety report (C83)
Social supervision function information of media (C84)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of media(B3)
Publicity for food safety of media (C9)
Publicity of food safety laws and regulations (C91)
Publicity of food safety standards and knowledge (C92)


## 2.3.1. Supervision Information of Media

Media plays a unique role in the exposure of food safety problems. During the “Sanlu milk powder” incident or the “Shuanghui clenbuterol” incident, media expanded the influence through the report in the early stage and then continued to place pressure on the government supervision work by tracking reports in the later stage [27]. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” the supervision information of media should be subdivided into four indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are food safety incident reports, food safety incident tracking reports, authenticity and impartiality of food safety report, and social supervision function information of media [27, 31, 35, 39, 43].


## 2.3.2. Food Safety Publicity of Media

The promotion of laws, regulations, standards, and knowledge on food safety relies on media. However, the present performance of media in this area is relatively weak and needs to be strengthened. According to the existing research results and “food safety law,” food safety publicity of media should be subdivided into two indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are publicity of food safety laws and regulations and publicity of food safety standards and knowledge [27, 31, 35, 39, 43].By combining the experts’ opinion (the Delphi expert group consists of 15 experts, including 6 food safety management professors from colleges and universities, 3 FDA experts, 2 food safety media experts, 2 CA experts, and 2 food business experts) using the Delphi method, the index system of FSSIT is constructed and is shown in Table1.Table 1
Index system of FSSIT.
Objective
First-level index
Second-level index
Third-level index
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Information platform of food safety of government (C1)
Overall situation of food safety information (C11)
Guiding information for supervision information (C12)
Supervision information disclosing directory (C13)
Key information of supervision (C14)
Standard information of food safety (C15)
Warning information of food safety risk (C16)
Information on administrative punishment of food safety issue (C17)
Qualification accreditation information of food inspection agency (C18)
Name list of food safety inspection agencies (C19)
Name list of production and business licenses (C110)
Certification information of company quality system (C111)
Supervision organization structure and personnel composition information (C112)
Food safety credit file information (C113)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Food safety accident emergency information of government (C2)
Food safety accident classification information (C21)
Accident disposal organization and commanding system and responsibility information (C22)
Prevention and warning mechanism information (C23)
Disposal procedure information (C24)
Emergency and safeguarding information (C25)
Accident investigation and disposal information (C26)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Food safety sampling information of government (C3)
Sampling object information (C31)
Sampling qualified information (C32)
Sampling unqualified information (C33)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of government(B1)
Information for safeguarding the government supervision mechanism (C4)
Open management information of supervision information (C41)
Annual report for supervision information (C42)
Report processing information (C43)
Supervision responsibility mechanism information (C44)
Supervision evaluation mechanism information (C45)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Supervision information of CA (C5)
Supervision mechanism information (C51)
Supervision organization structure and personnel composition information (C52)
Supervision evaluation information (C53)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Integrity building information of CA (C6)
Integrity building standard information (C61)
Name list of accredited company brands (C62)
Name list of non-accredited company brands (C63)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of CA(B2)
Information for safeguarding the supervision mechanism of CA (C7)
Information of social supervision function (C71)
Disclosure annual report of the supervision information (C72)
Disclosure management mechanism information of supervision information (C73)
Supervision responsibility mechanism information (C74)
Perfect degree and operation situation of food safety information platform (C75)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of media(B3)
Supervision information of media (C8)
Food safety incident report (C81)
Food safety incident tracking report (C82)
Authenticity and impartiality of food safety report (C83)
Social supervision function information of media (C84)
FSSIT (A)
FSSIT of media(B3)
Publicity for food safety of media (C9)
Publicity of food safety laws and regulations (C91)
Publicity of food safety standards and knowledge (C92)


## 3. Evaluation Model

The fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model is composed of the analytic network process (ANP) and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. The ANP compensates the defects of the analytic hierarchy process [45], and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method based on the membership theory of fuzzy mathematics effectively evaluates qualitative indexes [46]. Therefore, the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model presents many advantages in evaluation and analysis. In the process of food safety supervision, the same food safety supervision subjects exhibit a clear hierarchy. In other words, the various types of food safety supervision subjects show a significant dependency relationship. Thus, the influencing factors of FSSIT possess a typical level and dependent relationship. Accordingly, the index system of FSSIT forms an organic whole with a hierarchical network structure. A few indexes of FSSIT cannot be directly quantified because they present intervals and fuzzy characteristics on the value. Thus, evaluating FSSIT using the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model is highly scientific and applicable.


### 3.1. Constructing the Network Structure of ANP

In the network structure of FSSIT, the control layer contains the target and criteria; the target is A, and the criteria are the first-level indexes of the index system includingB1, B2, and B3. The network layer includes nine sets of elements that correspond to second- and third-level indexes of the index system; these sets are C1,C2,C3,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8, and C9. According to the mutual influence relationship within the evaluation index set of elements and between the set of elements and the indexes, the network structure of ANP is constructed and is shown in Figure 1.Figure 1
Network structure of ANP of FSSIT.


### 3.2. Determination of the Index Weight

With the help of ANP and Delphi expert scoring, the weight of each FSSIT indexes is determined. The specific process is as follows.Step 1.
Build a super matrix. Assume that ANP control layer criterion containsBs(s=1,2,…,m), the network layer contains a set of elements CN(N=1,…,n), and Ci contains elements Ci1,Ci2,…,Cin,i=1,2,…,N. According to the criterion of the control layer element Bs, use element Cj1 of Cj as the subcriterion, construct the judgment matrix based on the scale method of 1–9 as shown in Table 2, and obtain the normalized feature vector (wi1,wi2,…,win)T. Then, test the consistency of the obtained vector; the test passes when CR is less than 0.1; otherwise, the value of the matrix element needs to be adjusted. Similarly, obtain the normalized feature vector of other elements, and then obtain a super matrix, denoted as Wij.(1)Wij=wi1j1wi2j2⋯wi1jnjwi2j1wi2j2⋯wi2jnj⋮⋮⋱⋮winij1winij2⋯winijnj.
The column vector ofWij in this study is the element Ci1,Ci2,…,Cin in Ci. If the element in Cj is unaffected by the element in Ci, then Wij=0. In the same way, the super matrix of other control elements can be obtained. Therefore, the super matrix W under the criterion Bs is obtained as follows:(2)W=w11w12⋯w1Nw21w22⋯w2N⋮⋮⋱⋮wN1wN2⋯wNN.Table 2
Scale method of 1–9 in comparison.
Scale
Definition
1
Elementi and element j present the same importance
3
Elementi is moderately more important than element j
5
Elementi is strongly more important than element j
7
Elementi is very strongly more important than element j
9
Elementi is extremely more important than element j
2, 4, 6, 8
Median values of the two adjacent judgments
Reciprocal
The importance scale of elementj to element iStep 2.
Construct the weighted matrix and weighted super matrix. Under the criterionBs, the importance of the relative criterion of element Cj(j=1,2,…,N) is compared to obtain a normalized row sequence vector (a1j,a2j,…,aNj) such that a weighted matrix is obtained as follows:(3)A=a11a12⋯a1Na21a22⋯a2N⋮⋮⋱⋮aN1aN2⋯aNNaij∈0,1,∑Naij=1Therefore, the weighted super matrix is constructed as follows:(4)W-=Wij-=A×W=aij×Wiji=1,2,…,N,j=1,2,…,N.On the basis of the results of the super matrix and weighted super matrix, the local weight and overall weight of FSSIT indexes can be obtained. The weights used in this study are local weights.


### 3.3. Determination of Evaluation Rating and Rules

The evaluation rating is assumed as follows:v=(v1,v2,…,vN)(N=1,2,…, number of ranks). The evaluation rating is divided into five grades: good, relatively good, general, relatively poor, and poor; the values of these grades are 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0.


### 3.4. Determination of Fuzzy Relation Matrix

The fuzzy relation matrix is defined as follows:(5)R=rijN×M=r11r12⋯r1Mr21r22⋯r2M⋮⋮⋱⋮rN1rN2⋯rNM.Among them,R is a member of the index number i of the level number j and rij = the number of the indicator number i to select the level vi/the number of participating evaluation.


### 3.5. Determination of the Comprehensive Evaluation Level

A comprehensive evaluation vector is established by the fuzzy comprehensive operation of the weight set and the fuzzy relation matrix.(6)Si=Wi×R=wi1,wi2,…,wiNr11r12⋯r1Mr21r22⋯r2M⋮⋮⋱⋮rN1rN2⋯rNM=s1,s2,…,sM.In the comprehensive evaluation vector of FSSIT,M is equal to 5. Therefore, the final FSSIT score obtained by the weighted average method is T=100×s1+75×s2+50×s3+25×s4+0×s5.


## 3.1. Constructing the Network Structure of ANP

In the network structure of FSSIT, the control layer contains the target and criteria; the target is A, and the criteria are the first-level indexes of the index system includingB1, B2, and B3. The network layer includes nine sets of elements that correspond to second- and third-level indexes of the index system; these sets are C1,C2,C3,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8, and C9. According to the mutual influence relationship within the evaluation index set of elements and between the set of elements and the indexes, the network structure of ANP is constructed and is shown in Figure 1.Figure 1
Network structure of ANP of FSSIT.


## 3.2. Determination of the Index Weight

With the help of ANP and Delphi expert scoring, the weight of each FSSIT indexes is determined. The specific process is as follows.Step 1.
Build a super matrix. Assume that ANP control layer criterion containsBs(s=1,2,…,m), the network layer contains a set of elements CN(N=1,…,n), and Ci contains elements Ci1,Ci2,…,Cin,i=1,2,…,N. According to the criterion of the control layer element Bs, use element Cj1 of Cj as the subcriterion, construct the judgment matrix based on the scale method of 1–9 as shown in Table 2, and obtain the normalized feature vector (wi1,wi2,…,win)T. Then, test the consistency of the obtained vector; the test passes when CR is less than 0.1; otherwise, the value of the matrix element needs to be adjusted. Similarly, obtain the normalized feature vector of other elements, and then obtain a super matrix, denoted as Wij.(1)Wij=wi1j1wi2j2⋯wi1jnjwi2j1wi2j2⋯wi2jnj⋮⋮⋱⋮winij1winij2⋯winijnj.
The column vector ofWij in this study is the element Ci1,Ci2,…,Cin in Ci. If the element in Cj is unaffected by the element in Ci, then Wij=0. In the same way, the super matrix of other control elements can be obtained. Therefore, the super matrix W under the criterion Bs is obtained as follows:(2)W=w11w12⋯w1Nw21w22⋯w2N⋮⋮⋱⋮wN1wN2⋯wNN.Table 2
Scale method of 1–9 in comparison.
Scale
Definition
1
Elementi and element j present the same importance
3
Elementi is moderately more important than element j
5
Elementi is strongly more important than element j
7
Elementi is very strongly more important than element j
9
Elementi is extremely more important than element j
2, 4, 6, 8
Median values of the two adjacent judgments
Reciprocal
The importance scale of elementj to element iStep 2.
Construct the weighted matrix and weighted super matrix. Under the criterionBs, the importance of the relative criterion of element Cj(j=1,2,…,N) is compared to obtain a normalized row sequence vector (a1j,a2j,…,aNj) such that a weighted matrix is obtained as follows:(3)A=a11a12⋯a1Na21a22⋯a2N⋮⋮⋱⋮aN1aN2⋯aNNaij∈0,1,∑Naij=1Therefore, the weighted super matrix is constructed as follows:(4)W-=Wij-=A×W=aij×Wiji=1,2,…,N,j=1,2,…,N.On the basis of the results of the super matrix and weighted super matrix, the local weight and overall weight of FSSIT indexes can be obtained. The weights used in this study are local weights.


## 3.3. Determination of Evaluation Rating and Rules

The evaluation rating is assumed as follows:v=(v1,v2,…,vN)(N=1,2,…, number of ranks). The evaluation rating is divided into five grades: good, relatively good, general, relatively poor, and poor; the values of these grades are 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0.


## 3.4. Determination of Fuzzy Relation Matrix

The fuzzy relation matrix is defined as follows:(5)R=rijN×M=r11r12⋯r1Mr21r22⋯r2M⋮⋮⋱⋮rN1rN2⋯rNM.Among them,R is a member of the index number i of the level number j and rij = the number of the indicator number i to select the level vi/the number of participating evaluation.


## 3.5. Determination of the Comprehensive Evaluation Level

A comprehensive evaluation vector is established by the fuzzy comprehensive operation of the weight set and the fuzzy relation matrix.(6)Si=Wi×R=wi1,wi2,…,wiNr11r12⋯r1Mr21r22⋯r2M⋮⋮⋱⋮rN1rN2⋯rNM=s1,s2,…,sM.In the comprehensive evaluation vector of FSSIT,M is equal to 5. Therefore, the final FSSIT score obtained by the weighted average method is T=100×s1+75×s2+50×s3+25×s4+0×s5.


## 4. Empirical Research

### 4.1. Questionnaire Design

The aims of this study are as follows: evaluate the level of the entire FSSIT, various types of food safety supervision subjects, and different administrative levels and regions in China; explore the existing problems; boost the improvement in food safety management; promote the public’s access right to food safety information. On the basis of the FSSIT index system, the questionnaire for FDA, CA, and media is designed. The five-grade classification method is used to score each item in the questionnaire (each item is assigned a corresponding level of five scoring criteria to ensure the objectivity of scoring.); “good” means 100 points, “relatively good” means 75 points, “general” means 50 points, “relatively poor” means 25 points, and “poor” means 0 point (the final FSSIT score rating criteria are as follows: 100 points mean a full mark, 60 points and above are qualified, the score within[0,30] is poor, the score within [30,60] is relatively poor, the score within [60,75] is general, the score within [75,90] is relatively good, and the score within [90,100] is well.). We conduct a presurvey to carry out the survey.


### 4.2. Sample

FDA is the government department that is responsible for food safety supervision, according to the 15th provision of Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information. FDA should initiate in disclosing food safety supervision information, and this information should be accessible to the public. CA can reasonably support the supervision works of government for food safety and reduce the information asymmetry of food safety. Media can use its capability to improve the dissemination of food safety supervision information, deter food companies through the social effect of punishment, and rectify the behavior of food safety supervision department in government with the help of the collective reputation. Therefore, FDA, CA, and media are used as investigation objects in evaluating China’s FSSIT.The survey started from June 2016 to October 2016 and focuses mainly on FDA, CA, and media at the central, provincial, prefectural, and county levels. To ensure the objectivity of the survey results, the survey data were obtained from the official websites of FDA, CA, and media or by the assistance of a telephone survey. The data were collected by the end of September 2016. In this survey, a questionnaire represents a food safety supervision subject. A total of 697 completed questionnaires were obtained from FDA; 3 were invalid and 694 were valid among these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 99.570%. A total of 697 questionnaires were obtained from CA; 12 were invalid and 685 were valid among these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 98.278%. A total of 300 questionnaires were obtained from media; 28 were invalid and 272 were valid among these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 90.667%. Therefore, 1694 questionnaires were completed; 43 were invalid and 1651 were valid among these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 97.462%. Finally, we obtained 139525 valid survey data.


### 4.3. Data Analysis

In this study, the SPSS software is used to test the reliability and validity of the survey results, as shown in Table3.Table 3
Test of reliability and validity.
Subject of investigation
Cronbach’s alpha
KMO
Bartlett
df
sig
FDA
0.986
0.974
31487.675
351
0.000
CA
0.983
0.943
13869.744
55
0.000
media
0.971
0.899
2311.163
15
0.000Table3 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha values of FDA, CA, and media are 0.986, 0.983, and 0.971, all of which are above 0.9. Therefore, the measure of FDA, CA, and media presents good internal consistency and stability, and the reliability is quite good. The KMO values of FDA and CA are above 0.9, indicating that the factor analysis is quite good and the validity is quite high. The KMO value of media is above 0.8, indicating that the factor analysis is good and the validity is high.The characteristics of different administrative levels, geographical regions, and economic regions of FDA, CA, and media are shown in Tables4–6. (For the convenience of statistics and analysis, the central is compared in statistics; therefore, the central and provincial results appear side by side. At the central level, we only investigate China’s Food and Drug Administration (CFDA), China’s Consumers Association, and national media, such as People’s Daily.)Table 4
Characteristics of different administrative levels.
Administrative level
FDA
CA
Entirety
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Center
1
0.001
1
0.001
2
0.001
Province
31
0.045
31
0.045
62
0.045
Prefecture
333
0.480
330
0.482
663
0.481
County
329
0.474
323
0.472
652
0.473
Sum
694
1
685
1
1379
1Table 5
Characteristics of different geographical regions.
Geographical regions
Province
FDA
CA
Media
Entirety
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
East China
Shanghai
1
0.001
1
0.001
6
0.022
8
0.005
Jiangsu
35
0.050
35
0.051
12
0.044
82
0.050
Zhejiang
32
0.046
32
0.047
15
0.055
79
0.048
Anhui
23
0.033
23
0.034
8
0.029
54
0.033
Jiangxi
22
0.032
18
0.026
4
0.015
44
0.027
Shandong
46
0.066
46
0.067
17
0.063
109
0.066
Fujian
23
0.033
23
0.034
10
0.037
56
0.034
Total
182
0.261
178
0.260
72
0.265
432
0.263
North China
Beijing
1
0.001
1
0.001
10
0.037
12
0.007
Tianjin
1
0.001
1
0.001
7
0.026
9
0.005
Shanxi
23
0.033
22
0.032
6
0.022
51
0.031
Hebei
32
0.046
31
0.045
7
0.026
70
0.042
Neimenggu
20
0.029
20
0.029
6
0.022
46
0.028
Total
77
0.110
75
0.108
36
0.133
188
0.113
Central China
Henan
40
0.058
39
0.057
10
0.037
89
0.054
Hubei
34
0.049
35
0.051
6
0.022
75
0.045
Hunan
31
0.045
31
0.045
9
0.033
71
0.043
Total
105
0.152
105
0.153
25
0.092
235
0.142
South China
Guangdong
41
0.059
41
0.060
18
0.066
100
0.061
Guangxi
23
0.033
23
0.034
8
0.029
54
0.033
Hainan
10
0.014
10
0.015
2
0.007
22
0.013
Total
74
0.106
74
0.109
28
0.102
176
0.107
Southwest China
Sichuan
35
0.050
35
0.051
10
0.037
80
0.048
Guizhou
13
0.019
13
0.019
2
0.007
28
0.017
Yunnan
20
0.029
17
0.025
7
0.026
44
0.027
Chongqing
1
0.001
1
0.001
5
0.018
7
0.004
Xizang
8
0.012
8
0.012
3
0.011
19
0.012
Total
77
0.111
74
0.108
27
0.099
178
0.108
Northwest China
Shanxi
14
0.020
14
0.020
8
0.029
36
0.022
Gansu
17
0.024
17
0.025
8
0.029
42
0.025
Qinghai
12
0.017
12
0.018
3
0.011
27
0.016
Ningxia
8
0.012
8
0.012
8
0.029
24
0.015
Xinjiang
40
0.058
40
0.058
7
0.026
87
0.053
Total
91
0.131
91
0.133
34
0.124
216
0.131
Northeast China
Heilongjiang
32
0.046
32
0.047
10
0.037
74
0.045
Jilin
24
0.035
24
0.035
5
0.018
53
0.032
Liaoning
31
0.045
31
0.045
11
0.040
73
0.044
Total
87
0.126
87
0.127
26
0.095
200
0.121
Center
1
0.001
1
0.001
24
0.088
26
0.016
Sum
694
1.000
685
1.000
272
1.000
1651
1.000Table 6
Characteristics of different economic regions.
Economic regions
Province
FDA
CA
Media
Entirety
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
East part
Beijing
1
0.001
1
0.001
10
0.037
12
0.007
Tianjin
1
0.001
1
0.001
7
0.026
9
0.005
Hebei
32
0.046
31
0.045
7
0.026
70
0.042
Shanghai
1
0.001
1
0.001
6
0.022
8
0.005
Jiangsu
35
0.050
35
0.051
12
0.044
82
0.050
Zhejiang
32
0.046
32
0.047
15
0.055
79
0.048
Fujian
23
0.033
23
0.034
10
0.037
56
0.034
Shandong
46
0.066
46
0.067
17
0.063
109
0.066
Guangdong
41
0.059
41
0.060
18
0.066
100
0.061
Hainan
10
0.014
10
0.015
2
0.007
22
0.013
Total
222
0.317
221
0.322
104
0.383
547
0.331
Central
Shanxi
23
0.033
22
0.032
6
0.022
51
0.031
Anhui
23
0.033
23
0.034
8
0.029
54
0.033
Jiangxi
22
0.032
18
0.026
4
0.015
44
0.027
Henan
40
0.058
39
0.057
10
0.037
89
0.054
Hubei
34
0.049
35
0.051
6
0.022
75
0.045
Hunan
31
0.045
31
0.045
9
0.033
71
0.043
Total
173
0.250
168
0.245
43
0.158
384
0.233
Northeast
Heilongjiang
32
0.046
32
0.047
10
0.037
74
0.045
Jilin
24
0.035
24
0.035
5
0.018
53
0.032
Liaoning
31
0.045
31
0.045
11
0.040
73
0.044
Total
87
0.126
87
0.127
26
0.095
200
0.121
West
Neimenggu
20
0.029
20
0.029
6
0.022
46
0.028
Guangxi
23
0.033
23
0.034
8
0.029
54
0.033
Chongqing
1
0.001
1
0.001
5
0.018
7
0.004
Sichuan
35
0.050
35
0.051
10
0.037
80
0.048
Guizhou
13
0.019
13
0.019
2
0.007
28
0.017
Yunnan
20
0.029
17
0.025
7
0.026
44
0.027
Xizang
8
0.012
8
0.012
3
0.011
19
0.012
Shanxi
14
0.020
14
0.020
8
0.029
36
0.022
Gansu
17
0.024
17
0.025
8
0.029
42
0.025
Qinghai
12
0.017
12
0.018
3
0.011
27
0.016
Ningxia
8
0.012
8
0.012
8
0.029
24
0.015
Xinjiang
40
0.058
40
0.058
7
0.026
87
0.053
Total
211
0.304
208
0.304
75
0.274
494
0.300
Center
1
0.001
1
0.001
24
0.088
26
0.016
Sum
694
1.000
685
1.000
272
1.000
1651
1.000The survey involves FDA, CA, and media at the central, provincial, prefectural, and county levels. However, when investigating municipalities directly under the central government, we only investigate FDA and CA. No specific subdivision is applied to prefecture and county. The media survey mainly involves the mainstream media and We-media at the central and provincial levels.


### 4.4. Evaluation and Analysis

#### 4.4.1. Weight Calculation

On the basis of the above weight calculation method and the help of the Super decision software, the weight of the indexes is obtained and is shown in Table7.Table 7
Index weight.
First-level index
Weight
Second-level index
Weight
Third-level index
Weight
B1
0.328
C1
0.250
C11
0.097
C12
0.081
C13
0.078
C14
0.097
C15
0.091
C16
0.078
C17
0.065
C18
0.075
C19
0.037
C110
0.081
C111
0.075
C112
0.065
C113
0.081
B1
0.328
C2
0.250
C21
0.220
C22
0.110
C23
0.127
C24
0.127
C25
0.212
C26
0.203
B1
0.328
C3
0.250
C31
0.250
C32
0.250
C33
0.500
B1
0.328
C4
0.250
C41
0.147
C42
0.197
C43
0.255
C44
0.255
C45
0.147
B2
0.260
C5
0.333
C51
0.500
C52
0.250
C53
0.250
B2
0.260
C6
0.333
C61
0.260
C62
0.328
C63
0.413
B2
0.260
C7
0.333
C71
0.286
C72
0.286
C73
0.143
C74
0.143
C75
0.143
B3
0.413
C8
0.500
C81
0.143
C82
0.286
C83
0.286
C84
0.286
B3
0.413
C9
0.500
C91
0.333
C92
0.667


#### 4.4.2. Fuzzy Comprehensive Calculation

On the basis of 1651 questionnaires containing 139525 data from FDA, CA, and media and using the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model, the transparency scores of various types of food safety supervision subjects are obtained. The scores in different administrative levels, geographical regions, and economic regions in China are shown in Tables8–11.Table 8
Scores of various types of food safety supervision subjects.
Evaluation goal
Score
Grade
Rank
Evaluation goal
Score
Grade
Rank
Media
66.675
General
1
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
3
FDA
57.455
Relatively poor
2
CA
40.895
Relatively poor
4Table 9
Scores of different administrative levels (media includes media bodies at the prefectural and county levels, but they show no specific distinction to those at the central and provincial levels; therefore, this study does not evaluate the FSSIT of media at different administrative levels.).
Evaluation goal
Score of FDA
Grade
Rank
Score of CA
Grade
Rank
Center
95.416
Good
1
80.053
Relatively good
1
Province
83.130
Relatively good
2
67.563
General
2
Prefecture
70.638
General
3
46.605
Relatively poor
3
County
41.588
Relatively poor
4
32.398
Relatively poor
4Table 10
Scores of different geographical regions.
Geographical area
Score
Grade
Rank
Score of FDA
Score of CA
Score of media
Center
82.770
Relatively good
1
95.415
80.053
75.005
East China
60.648
General
2
58.768
43.011
73.251
South China
60.113
General
3
67.365
56.978
56.333
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
4
57.455
40.895
66.675
North China
55.135
Relatively poor
5
51.219
36.828
69.776
Northeast China
55.016
Relatively poor
6
51.098
38.586
68.474
Southwest China
54.250
Relatively poor
7
51.874
29.937
71.451
Northwest China
52.815
Relatively poor
8
60.088
38.032
56.355
Central China
52.315
Relatively poor
9
59.503
40.659
53.952Table 11
Scores of different economic regions.
Economic region
Score
Grade
Rank
Score of FDA
Score of CA
Score of media
Center
82.770
Relatively good
1
95.415
80.053
75.005
East
59.303
Relatively poor
2
61.314
45.632
66.318
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
3
57.455
40.895
66.675
Central
56.952
Relatively poor
4
55.646
42.377
67.169
Northwest
55.016
Relatively poor
5
51.098
38.586
68.474
West
54.242
Relatively poor
6
57.327
35.462
63.624As shown in Table8, analyzing various types of food safety supervision subjects reveals that the FSSIT of media obtains the highest score and at a general level. The FSSIT of FDA and CA obtains a lower score but at a qualified level. The scores of the various types of food safety supervision subjects show that the FSSIT work in FDA, CA, and media presents a certain degree of loss. In addition, the overall score of FSSIT shows that China’s entire FSSIT reaches an acceptable level at present. In other words, China has exerted much effort to improve FSSIT, but a certain extent of work loss still exists. Therefore, each type of of food safety supervision subjects needs to improve the FSSIT work.Table9 indicates that the FSSIT of FDA and CA gradually declines when that at the administrative level decreases. The FSSIT scores of different administrative levels show that the food safety supervision works at the provincial level are more standardized than those at the prefectural and county levels. The local supervision works on food safety information transparency present deficiencies. Among them, the work at the county level is the worst. In such a case, the public’s panic psychology and “herd instinct” easily occur in case of food safety accident. By contrast, the work at the central level is the most standardized and obtains the highest score.Table10 shows that, in the seven geographical regions in China, Eastern and Southern China obtain the highest score and at the general level. North, Northeast, Southwest, Northwest, and Central China obtain a lower score but at a qualified level. However, analyzing Tables 8 and 9 shows that the FSSIT of different geographical regions is mostly at a poor level; this poor performance is due to the poor level of CA at the county level. Comparing the entirety and central level with the seven geographical regions shows that the FSSIT at the central level presents the highest score and achieves a better level. The low scores of each geographical region affect the entire FSSIT, thereby resulting in a relatively poor but qualified level. This situation reflects that the current overall situation of food safety supervision information is still insufficiently transparent and that the public’s access right to food safety information needs to be further improved.Table11 shows that, in China’s four economic regions, the FSSIT score of the eastern region is the highest, followed by that of the central, northeast, and western regions at a relatively poor level. Although the FSSIT of the four economic regions reach the qualified level, the transparency is still pessimistic. This finding is consistent with the results shown in Table 10. Comparing the entirety and central level with the four economic regions, only the FSSIT at the central level reaches a relatively good level and is affected by the low score of the four economic regions. The entire FSSIT is at a relatively poor level. These findings are consistent with the results shown in Table 10.In summary, China has exerted much effort to improve FSSIT but presents a certain degree of work loss in the entirety, various types of food safety supervision subjects, and different administrative levels and regions. In addition, the public’s access right to food safety information must be further enhanced.


## 4.1. Questionnaire Design

The aims of this study are as follows: evaluate the level of the entire FSSIT, various types of food safety supervision subjects, and different administrative levels and regions in China; explore the existing problems; boost the improvement in food safety management; promote the public’s access right to food safety information. On the basis of the FSSIT index system, the questionnaire for FDA, CA, and media is designed. The five-grade classification method is used to score each item in the questionnaire (each item is assigned a corresponding level of five scoring criteria to ensure the objectivity of scoring.); “good” means 100 points, “relatively good” means 75 points, “general” means 50 points, “relatively poor” means 25 points, and “poor” means 0 point (the final FSSIT score rating criteria are as follows: 100 points mean a full mark, 60 points and above are qualified, the score within[0,30] is poor, the score within [30,60] is relatively poor, the score within [60,75] is general, the score within [75,90] is relatively good, and the score within [90,100] is well.). We conduct a presurvey to carry out the survey.


## 4.2. Sample

FDA is the government department that is responsible for food safety supervision, according to the 15th provision of Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information. FDA should initiate in disclosing food safety supervision information, and this information should be accessible to the public. CA can reasonably support the supervision works of government for food safety and reduce the information asymmetry of food safety. Media can use its capability to improve the dissemination of food safety supervision information, deter food companies through the social effect of punishment, and rectify the behavior of food safety supervision department in government with the help of the collective reputation. Therefore, FDA, CA, and media are used as investigation objects in evaluating China’s FSSIT.The survey started from June 2016 to October 2016 and focuses mainly on FDA, CA, and media at the central, provincial, prefectural, and county levels. To ensure the objectivity of the survey results, the survey data were obtained from the official websites of FDA, CA, and media or by the assistance of a telephone survey. The data were collected by the end of September 2016. In this survey, a questionnaire represents a food safety supervision subject. A total of 697 completed questionnaires were obtained from FDA; 3 were invalid and 694 were valid among these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 99.570%. A total of 697 questionnaires were obtained from CA; 12 were invalid and 685 were valid among these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 98.278%. A total of 300 questionnaires were obtained from media; 28 were invalid and 272 were valid among these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 90.667%. Therefore, 1694 questionnaires were completed; 43 were invalid and 1651 were valid among these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 97.462%. Finally, we obtained 139525 valid survey data.


## 4.3. Data Analysis

In this study, the SPSS software is used to test the reliability and validity of the survey results, as shown in Table3.Table 3
Test of reliability and validity.
Subject of investigation
Cronbach’s alpha
KMO
Bartlett
df
sig
FDA
0.986
0.974
31487.675
351
0.000
CA
0.983
0.943
13869.744
55
0.000
media
0.971
0.899
2311.163
15
0.000Table3 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha values of FDA, CA, and media are 0.986, 0.983, and 0.971, all of which are above 0.9. Therefore, the measure of FDA, CA, and media presents good internal consistency and stability, and the reliability is quite good. The KMO values of FDA and CA are above 0.9, indicating that the factor analysis is quite good and the validity is quite high. The KMO value of media is above 0.8, indicating that the factor analysis is good and the validity is high.The characteristics of different administrative levels, geographical regions, and economic regions of FDA, CA, and media are shown in Tables4–6. (For the convenience of statistics and analysis, the central is compared in statistics; therefore, the central and provincial results appear side by side. At the central level, we only investigate China’s Food and Drug Administration (CFDA), China’s Consumers Association, and national media, such as People’s Daily.)Table 4
Characteristics of different administrative levels.
Administrative level
FDA
CA
Entirety
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Center
1
0.001
1
0.001
2
0.001
Province
31
0.045
31
0.045
62
0.045
Prefecture
333
0.480
330
0.482
663
0.481
County
329
0.474
323
0.472
652
0.473
Sum
694
1
685
1
1379
1Table 5
Characteristics of different geographical regions.
Geographical regions
Province
FDA
CA
Media
Entirety
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
East China
Shanghai
1
0.001
1
0.001
6
0.022
8
0.005
Jiangsu
35
0.050
35
0.051
12
0.044
82
0.050
Zhejiang
32
0.046
32
0.047
15
0.055
79
0.048
Anhui
23
0.033
23
0.034
8
0.029
54
0.033
Jiangxi
22
0.032
18
0.026
4
0.015
44
0.027
Shandong
46
0.066
46
0.067
17
0.063
109
0.066
Fujian
23
0.033
23
0.034
10
0.037
56
0.034
Total
182
0.261
178
0.260
72
0.265
432
0.263
North China
Beijing
1
0.001
1
0.001
10
0.037
12
0.007
Tianjin
1
0.001
1
0.001
7
0.026
9
0.005
Shanxi
23
0.033
22
0.032
6
0.022
51
0.031
Hebei
32
0.046
31
0.045
7
0.026
70
0.042
Neimenggu
20
0.029
20
0.029
6
0.022
46
0.028
Total
77
0.110
75
0.108
36
0.133
188
0.113
Central China
Henan
40
0.058
39
0.057
10
0.037
89
0.054
Hubei
34
0.049
35
0.051
6
0.022
75
0.045
Hunan
31
0.045
31
0.045
9
0.033
71
0.043
Total
105
0.152
105
0.153
25
0.092
235
0.142
South China
Guangdong
41
0.059
41
0.060
18
0.066
100
0.061
Guangxi
23
0.033
23
0.034
8
0.029
54
0.033
Hainan
10
0.014
10
0.015
2
0.007
22
0.013
Total
74
0.106
74
0.109
28
0.102
176
0.107
Southwest China
Sichuan
35
0.050
35
0.051
10
0.037
80
0.048
Guizhou
13
0.019
13
0.019
2
0.007
28
0.017
Yunnan
20
0.029
17
0.025
7
0.026
44
0.027
Chongqing
1
0.001
1
0.001
5
0.018
7
0.004
Xizang
8
0.012
8
0.012
3
0.011
19
0.012
Total
77
0.111
74
0.108
27
0.099
178
0.108
Northwest China
Shanxi
14
0.020
14
0.020
8
0.029
36
0.022
Gansu
17
0.024
17
0.025
8
0.029
42
0.025
Qinghai
12
0.017
12
0.018
3
0.011
27
0.016
Ningxia
8
0.012
8
0.012
8
0.029
24
0.015
Xinjiang
40
0.058
40
0.058
7
0.026
87
0.053
Total
91
0.131
91
0.133
34
0.124
216
0.131
Northeast China
Heilongjiang
32
0.046
32
0.047
10
0.037
74
0.045
Jilin
24
0.035
24
0.035
5
0.018
53
0.032
Liaoning
31
0.045
31
0.045
11
0.040
73
0.044
Total
87
0.126
87
0.127
26
0.095
200
0.121
Center
1
0.001
1
0.001
24
0.088
26
0.016
Sum
694
1.000
685
1.000
272
1.000
1651
1.000Table 6
Characteristics of different economic regions.
Economic regions
Province
FDA
CA
Media
Entirety
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
Frequency
Proportion
East part
Beijing
1
0.001
1
0.001
10
0.037
12
0.007
Tianjin
1
0.001
1
0.001
7
0.026
9
0.005
Hebei
32
0.046
31
0.045
7
0.026
70
0.042
Shanghai
1
0.001
1
0.001
6
0.022
8
0.005
Jiangsu
35
0.050
35
0.051
12
0.044
82
0.050
Zhejiang
32
0.046
32
0.047
15
0.055
79
0.048
Fujian
23
0.033
23
0.034
10
0.037
56
0.034
Shandong
46
0.066
46
0.067
17
0.063
109
0.066
Guangdong
41
0.059
41
0.060
18
0.066
100
0.061
Hainan
10
0.014
10
0.015
2
0.007
22
0.013
Total
222
0.317
221
0.322
104
0.383
547
0.331
Central
Shanxi
23
0.033
22
0.032
6
0.022
51
0.031
Anhui
23
0.033
23
0.034
8
0.029
54
0.033
Jiangxi
22
0.032
18
0.026
4
0.015
44
0.027
Henan
40
0.058
39
0.057
10
0.037
89
0.054
Hubei
34
0.049
35
0.051
6
0.022
75
0.045
Hunan
31
0.045
31
0.045
9
0.033
71
0.043
Total
173
0.250
168
0.245
43
0.158
384
0.233
Northeast
Heilongjiang
32
0.046
32
0.047
10
0.037
74
0.045
Jilin
24
0.035
24
0.035
5
0.018
53
0.032
Liaoning
31
0.045
31
0.045
11
0.040
73
0.044
Total
87
0.126
87
0.127
26
0.095
200
0.121
West
Neimenggu
20
0.029
20
0.029
6
0.022
46
0.028
Guangxi
23
0.033
23
0.034
8
0.029
54
0.033
Chongqing
1
0.001
1
0.001
5
0.018
7
0.004
Sichuan
35
0.050
35
0.051
10
0.037
80
0.048
Guizhou
13
0.019
13
0.019
2
0.007
28
0.017
Yunnan
20
0.029
17
0.025
7
0.026
44
0.027
Xizang
8
0.012
8
0.012
3
0.011
19
0.012
Shanxi
14
0.020
14
0.020
8
0.029
36
0.022
Gansu
17
0.024
17
0.025
8
0.029
42
0.025
Qinghai
12
0.017
12
0.018
3
0.011
27
0.016
Ningxia
8
0.012
8
0.012
8
0.029
24
0.015
Xinjiang
40
0.058
40
0.058
7
0.026
87
0.053
Total
211
0.304
208
0.304
75
0.274
494
0.300
Center
1
0.001
1
0.001
24
0.088
26
0.016
Sum
694
1.000
685
1.000
272
1.000
1651
1.000The survey involves FDA, CA, and media at the central, provincial, prefectural, and county levels. However, when investigating municipalities directly under the central government, we only investigate FDA and CA. No specific subdivision is applied to prefecture and county. The media survey mainly involves the mainstream media and We-media at the central and provincial levels.


## 4.4. Evaluation and Analysis

### 4.4.1. Weight Calculation

On the basis of the above weight calculation method and the help of the Super decision software, the weight of the indexes is obtained and is shown in Table7.Table 7
Index weight.
First-level index
Weight
Second-level index
Weight
Third-level index
Weight
B1
0.328
C1
0.250
C11
0.097
C12
0.081
C13
0.078
C14
0.097
C15
0.091
C16
0.078
C17
0.065
C18
0.075
C19
0.037
C110
0.081
C111
0.075
C112
0.065
C113
0.081
B1
0.328
C2
0.250
C21
0.220
C22
0.110
C23
0.127
C24
0.127
C25
0.212
C26
0.203
B1
0.328
C3
0.250
C31
0.250
C32
0.250
C33
0.500
B1
0.328
C4
0.250
C41
0.147
C42
0.197
C43
0.255
C44
0.255
C45
0.147
B2
0.260
C5
0.333
C51
0.500
C52
0.250
C53
0.250
B2
0.260
C6
0.333
C61
0.260
C62
0.328
C63
0.413
B2
0.260
C7
0.333
C71
0.286
C72
0.286
C73
0.143
C74
0.143
C75
0.143
B3
0.413
C8
0.500
C81
0.143
C82
0.286
C83
0.286
C84
0.286
B3
0.413
C9
0.500
C91
0.333
C92
0.667


### 4.4.2. Fuzzy Comprehensive Calculation

On the basis of 1651 questionnaires containing 139525 data from FDA, CA, and media and using the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model, the transparency scores of various types of food safety supervision subjects are obtained. The scores in different administrative levels, geographical regions, and economic regions in China are shown in Tables8–11.Table 8
Scores of various types of food safety supervision subjects.
Evaluation goal
Score
Grade
Rank
Evaluation goal
Score
Grade
Rank
Media
66.675
General
1
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
3
FDA
57.455
Relatively poor
2
CA
40.895
Relatively poor
4Table 9
Scores of different administrative levels (media includes media bodies at the prefectural and county levels, but they show no specific distinction to those at the central and provincial levels; therefore, this study does not evaluate the FSSIT of media at different administrative levels.).
Evaluation goal
Score of FDA
Grade
Rank
Score of CA
Grade
Rank
Center
95.416
Good
1
80.053
Relatively good
1
Province
83.130
Relatively good
2
67.563
General
2
Prefecture
70.638
General
3
46.605
Relatively poor
3
County
41.588
Relatively poor
4
32.398
Relatively poor
4Table 10
Scores of different geographical regions.
Geographical area
Score
Grade
Rank
Score of FDA
Score of CA
Score of media
Center
82.770
Relatively good
1
95.415
80.053
75.005
East China
60.648
General
2
58.768
43.011
73.251
South China
60.113
General
3
67.365
56.978
56.333
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
4
57.455
40.895
66.675
North China
55.135
Relatively poor
5
51.219
36.828
69.776
Northeast China
55.016
Relatively poor
6
51.098
38.586
68.474
Southwest China
54.250
Relatively poor
7
51.874
29.937
71.451
Northwest China
52.815
Relatively poor
8
60.088
38.032
56.355
Central China
52.315
Relatively poor
9
59.503
40.659
53.952Table 11
Scores of different economic regions.
Economic region
Score
Grade
Rank
Score of FDA
Score of CA
Score of media
Center
82.770
Relatively good
1
95.415
80.053
75.005
East
59.303
Relatively poor
2
61.314
45.632
66.318
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
3
57.455
40.895
66.675
Central
56.952
Relatively poor
4
55.646
42.377
67.169
Northwest
55.016
Relatively poor
5
51.098
38.586
68.474
West
54.242
Relatively poor
6
57.327
35.462
63.624As shown in Table8, analyzing various types of food safety supervision subjects reveals that the FSSIT of media obtains the highest score and at a general level. The FSSIT of FDA and CA obtains a lower score but at a qualified level. The scores of the various types of food safety supervision subjects show that the FSSIT work in FDA, CA, and media presents a certain degree of loss. In addition, the overall score of FSSIT shows that China’s entire FSSIT reaches an acceptable level at present. In other words, China has exerted much effort to improve FSSIT, but a certain extent of work loss still exists. Therefore, each type of of food safety supervision subjects needs to improve the FSSIT work.Table9 indicates that the FSSIT of FDA and CA gradually declines when that at the administrative level decreases. The FSSIT scores of different administrative levels show that the food safety supervision works at the provincial level are more standardized than those at the prefectural and county levels. The local supervision works on food safety information transparency present deficiencies. Among them, the work at the county level is the worst. In such a case, the public’s panic psychology and “herd instinct” easily occur in case of food safety accident. By contrast, the work at the central level is the most standardized and obtains the highest score.Table10 shows that, in the seven geographical regions in China, Eastern and Southern China obtain the highest score and at the general level. North, Northeast, Southwest, Northwest, and Central China obtain a lower score but at a qualified level. However, analyzing Tables 8 and 9 shows that the FSSIT of different geographical regions is mostly at a poor level; this poor performance is due to the poor level of CA at the county level. Comparing the entirety and central level with the seven geographical regions shows that the FSSIT at the central level presents the highest score and achieves a better level. The low scores of each geographical region affect the entire FSSIT, thereby resulting in a relatively poor but qualified level. This situation reflects that the current overall situation of food safety supervision information is still insufficiently transparent and that the public’s access right to food safety information needs to be further improved.Table11 shows that, in China’s four economic regions, the FSSIT score of the eastern region is the highest, followed by that of the central, northeast, and western regions at a relatively poor level. Although the FSSIT of the four economic regions reach the qualified level, the transparency is still pessimistic. This finding is consistent with the results shown in Table 10. Comparing the entirety and central level with the four economic regions, only the FSSIT at the central level reaches a relatively good level and is affected by the low score of the four economic regions. The entire FSSIT is at a relatively poor level. These findings are consistent with the results shown in Table 10.In summary, China has exerted much effort to improve FSSIT but presents a certain degree of work loss in the entirety, various types of food safety supervision subjects, and different administrative levels and regions. In addition, the public’s access right to food safety information must be further enhanced.


## 4.4.1. Weight Calculation

On the basis of the above weight calculation method and the help of the Super decision software, the weight of the indexes is obtained and is shown in Table7.Table 7
Index weight.
First-level index
Weight
Second-level index
Weight
Third-level index
Weight
B1
0.328
C1
0.250
C11
0.097
C12
0.081
C13
0.078
C14
0.097
C15
0.091
C16
0.078
C17
0.065
C18
0.075
C19
0.037
C110
0.081
C111
0.075
C112
0.065
C113
0.081
B1
0.328
C2
0.250
C21
0.220
C22
0.110
C23
0.127
C24
0.127
C25
0.212
C26
0.203
B1
0.328
C3
0.250
C31
0.250
C32
0.250
C33
0.500
B1
0.328
C4
0.250
C41
0.147
C42
0.197
C43
0.255
C44
0.255
C45
0.147
B2
0.260
C5
0.333
C51
0.500
C52
0.250
C53
0.250
B2
0.260
C6
0.333
C61
0.260
C62
0.328
C63
0.413
B2
0.260
C7
0.333
C71
0.286
C72
0.286
C73
0.143
C74
0.143
C75
0.143
B3
0.413
C8
0.500
C81
0.143
C82
0.286
C83
0.286
C84
0.286
B3
0.413
C9
0.500
C91
0.333
C92
0.667


## 4.4.2. Fuzzy Comprehensive Calculation

On the basis of 1651 questionnaires containing 139525 data from FDA, CA, and media and using the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model, the transparency scores of various types of food safety supervision subjects are obtained. The scores in different administrative levels, geographical regions, and economic regions in China are shown in Tables8–11.Table 8
Scores of various types of food safety supervision subjects.
Evaluation goal
Score
Grade
Rank
Evaluation goal
Score
Grade
Rank
Media
66.675
General
1
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
3
FDA
57.455
Relatively poor
2
CA
40.895
Relatively poor
4Table 9
Scores of different administrative levels (media includes media bodies at the prefectural and county levels, but they show no specific distinction to those at the central and provincial levels; therefore, this study does not evaluate the FSSIT of media at different administrative levels.).
Evaluation goal
Score of FDA
Grade
Rank
Score of CA
Grade
Rank
Center
95.416
Good
1
80.053
Relatively good
1
Province
83.130
Relatively good
2
67.563
General
2
Prefecture
70.638
General
3
46.605
Relatively poor
3
County
41.588
Relatively poor
4
32.398
Relatively poor
4Table 10
Scores of different geographical regions.
Geographical area
Score
Grade
Rank
Score of FDA
Score of CA
Score of media
Center
82.770
Relatively good
1
95.415
80.053
75.005
East China
60.648
General
2
58.768
43.011
73.251
South China
60.113
General
3
67.365
56.978
56.333
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
4
57.455
40.895
66.675
North China
55.135
Relatively poor
5
51.219
36.828
69.776
Northeast China
55.016
Relatively poor
6
51.098
38.586
68.474
Southwest China
54.250
Relatively poor
7
51.874
29.937
71.451
Northwest China
52.815
Relatively poor
8
60.088
38.032
56.355
Central China
52.315
Relatively poor
9
59.503
40.659
53.952Table 11
Scores of different economic regions.
Economic region
Score
Grade
Rank
Score of FDA
Score of CA
Score of media
Center
82.770
Relatively good
1
95.415
80.053
75.005
East
59.303
Relatively poor
2
61.314
45.632
66.318
Entirety
56.963
Relatively poor
3
57.455
40.895
66.675
Central
56.952
Relatively poor
4
55.646
42.377
67.169
Northwest
55.016
Relatively poor
5
51.098
38.586
68.474
West
54.242
Relatively poor
6
57.327
35.462
63.624As shown in Table8, analyzing various types of food safety supervision subjects reveals that the FSSIT of media obtains the highest score and at a general level. The FSSIT of FDA and CA obtains a lower score but at a qualified level. The scores of the various types of food safety supervision subjects show that the FSSIT work in FDA, CA, and media presents a certain degree of loss. In addition, the overall score of FSSIT shows that China’s entire FSSIT reaches an acceptable level at present. In other words, China has exerted much effort to improve FSSIT, but a certain extent of work loss still exists. Therefore, each type of of food safety supervision subjects needs to improve the FSSIT work.Table9 indicates that the FSSIT of FDA and CA gradually declines when that at the administrative level decreases. The FSSIT scores of different administrative levels show that the food safety supervision works at the provincial level are more standardized than those at the prefectural and county levels. The local supervision works on food safety information transparency present deficiencies. Among them, the work at the county level is the worst. In such a case, the public’s panic psychology and “herd instinct” easily occur in case of food safety accident. By contrast, the work at the central level is the most standardized and obtains the highest score.Table10 shows that, in the seven geographical regions in China, Eastern and Southern China obtain the highest score and at the general level. North, Northeast, Southwest, Northwest, and Central China obtain a lower score but at a qualified level. However, analyzing Tables 8 and 9 shows that the FSSIT of different geographical regions is mostly at a poor level; this poor performance is due to the poor level of CA at the county level. Comparing the entirety and central level with the seven geographical regions shows that the FSSIT at the central level presents the highest score and achieves a better level. The low scores of each geographical region affect the entire FSSIT, thereby resulting in a relatively poor but qualified level. This situation reflects that the current overall situation of food safety supervision information is still insufficiently transparent and that the public’s access right to food safety information needs to be further improved.Table11 shows that, in China’s four economic regions, the FSSIT score of the eastern region is the highest, followed by that of the central, northeast, and western regions at a relatively poor level. Although the FSSIT of the four economic regions reach the qualified level, the transparency is still pessimistic. This finding is consistent with the results shown in Table 10. Comparing the entirety and central level with the four economic regions, only the FSSIT at the central level reaches a relatively good level and is affected by the low score of the four economic regions. The entire FSSIT is at a relatively poor level. These findings are consistent with the results shown in Table 10.In summary, China has exerted much effort to improve FSSIT but presents a certain degree of work loss in the entirety, various types of food safety supervision subjects, and different administrative levels and regions. In addition, the public’s access right to food safety information must be further enhanced.


## 5. Discussion

This study finds that the entire FSSIT work in China presents deficiencies, and those at the county level are serious. Local food safety supervision subjects expand supervision works according to the actual situation of each administrative region, and the released information meets the needs of the local public. However, the survey results show that FSSIT gradually declines when that at the administrative level decreases; this finding is consistent with the conclusions of the study of the Center for Public Participation Studies and Supports [17]. The FSSIT score of FDA, especially the low score at the prefectural and county levels, shows that the works of local FDA still present deficiencies despite the implementation of the 105th, 109th, 113th, 116th, 118th, and 119th “food safety law.” Therefore, China’s FDA reform exhibits a certain degree of deviation, and the reform fails to construct a unified and authoritative FDA and weakens the power of FDA in a few regions. At the end of 2014, 95% of prefectural and 80% of county level works are independently set up by FDA. By the end of 2015, they reduced to 82% and 42%, respectively; the numbers are still decreasing (source: the latest speech of Bi Jingquan at the CFDA National Bureau Chief on the consistency evaluation of generic drugs (http://www.cpia.org.cn/news/dt4381833320773.html)). In such a situation, China should perform adjustments to avoid deviating from the original intention of the reform.From the FSSIT ranking of the different regions, the economic development level indirectly determines the FSSIT level. In general, highly developed economies perfectly conduct the corresponding work, including FSSIT. However, the entire FSSIT score of the different regions does not support this deduction. The detailed analysis shows that China has become the second largest economy in the world and has reached the level of a well-off society. The social construction of the country has also significantly improved. Therefore, the FSSIT in China should be at a good level. However, this study finds a different result. The FSSIT ranking of the different geographical regions meets the economic development ranking. However, the FSSIT level in Eastern and Northern China disagrees with the economic development level. Similarly, the FSSIT of the different economic regions also differs.The FSSIT score shows that the entire FSSIT is qualified at present but is still in a relatively poor level; this situation is not conducive to ease rumors of “herd instinct” and does not promote healthy development of the food industry. In addition, food safety is ranked first in China’s top 10 focus issues for four consecutive years; this phenomenon reflects the current lack of information transparency of food safety. If FDA, CA, and media can timely, accurately, and conveniently release food safety supervision information, then the public’s panic can be reduced, the public’s awareness of food safety incidents can be enhanced, and the rumors of “herd instinct” can be alleviated. However, as parts of food safety social supervision, CA and media fail to effectively spread food safety supervision information to the public, and FDA imperfectly conducts its works. This situation explains the public’s amplification of current food safety issues in China and the public’s certain degree of food safety fear and public’s distrust of food companies. Among these issues, the most representative is the melamine incident, which triggered a distrust of domestic dairy of the entire society such that a huge loss of domestic dairy industry occurred [47, 48].This study also indicates that the frequent food safety issues in China are due to the information asymmetry of food safety, which easily leads to adverse selection and moral hazard of food companies [48]. Food safety supervision mainly depends on food safety supervision department of government [13]. In working toward local economic development, local government may come into conflict with food companies [49, 50]. This situation leads to the nontransparency of local food safety supervision information and difficulty in addressing food safety issues. CA and media cannot fully play their supervising roles when under pressure [50], thereby resulting in the lack of FSSIT work. In such a situation, the public’s access to food safety supervision information becomes ineffective and the problem food companies cannot be eliminated using the power of the supervision subjects. The cost of compliant food companies is higher than that of the problem food companies; thus, the competitiveness of food companies declines or disappears [12, 26]. In other words, the problem food companies willingly take risk of producing or selling problem food, while the compliant food companies cannot compete with the problem food companies because of cost and profit pressures. Accordingly, the products or sales of compliant food companies can disappear. If compliant food companies shift to producing or selling problem food, then the food safety situation in the entire society can deteriorate. This situation reflects that the difficulty in addressing China’s food safety problem is indeed attributed mainly to the information asymmetry of food safety. Specifically, the public cannot effectively distinguish the problem food companies from the compliant food companies. This situation is conducive to adverse selection and moral hazard of the food companies.


## 6. Conclusion

On the basis of China’s “food safety law” and existing literature, an index system of FSSIT is constructed in this study using the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model and 1651 questionnaires. Using this system, the entirety, various types of food safety supervision subjects and different administrative levels and regions of FSSIT in China are evaluated. The empirical results are as follows:(1)
China has exerted much effort to improve FSSIT, and the entire FSSIT reaches a qualified level. However, FDA, CA, and media still imperfectly conduct their works, and supervision information asymmetry of food safety occurs. This situation is conducive to adverse selection and moral risk of food companies and cannot ease the rumor of “herd instinct” and promote healthy development of the food industry.(2)
FSSIT gradually declines when that in the administrative level decreases. The work of the local FSSIT presents deficiencies, and those at the county level are serious. This situation also reflects that China’s FDA reform exhibits a certain degree of deviation, and the public’s access right to food safety information needs to be further improved.(3)
The economic development level indirectly determines the FSSIT level. The current levels of FSSIT and economic development in the country do not match. This problem can be solved by cooperation among the food safety supervision subjects at different administrative levels and regions.The results of this study not only help enhance the public’s awareness on China’s FSSIT but also provide a strong reference for the food safety supervision subjects to determine their own shortcomings and improve their work. However, only the data of FDA, CA, and media collected on 2016 are used, and no dynamic comparison is conducted. Therefore, future works can conduct the following tasks: track the original goals; research the continuous changes of FDA, CA, and media; promote various types of food safety supervision subjects to improve their work; and enhance the public’s access right to food safety information.



---

*Source: 4340869-2017-03-20.xml*