Introduction Criminal deterrence and the restoration of public interests are integrated in the system of criminal incidental civil public interest litigation in the field of food safety. However, the inherent tension between criminal and civil law within this framework has created practical challenges. Methods Drawing on an empirical analysis of 677 judicial judgments, this study identifies several systemic impediments to effective judicial decision-making. Results First, an ambiguous definition of “social public interest” makes it difficult to initiate litigation and leads to the arbitrary extension of the case scope. Second, public interest repair is delayed by the rigid adherence to the principle of “criminal liability first, and then civil liability.” Third, uncertainty regarding the applicable standards of proof arises because civil adjudication heavily relies on criminal proceedings. Furthermore, judicial discretion is unchecked in the application of punitive damages, judgments are not effectively enforced, and regulatory oversight is inadequate. Discussion In light of the forthcoming Public Interest Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, it is imperative to establish a flexible trial model oriented toward repair, to clarify the distinctions between criminal and civil standards of proof, and to further refine the rules governing the discretion and administration of punitive damages. The efficiency and effectiveness of this system can be enhanced by strengthening the procedural framework for criminal incidental civil public interest litigation, thereby contributing to comprehensive governance that integrates punishment, prevention, and repair in safeguarding food safety.
Han et al. (Wed,) studied this question.