Transparent Assessment of the Supervision Information in China's Food Safety: A Fuzzy-ANP ...

15 Pages·2017·1.41 MB·English

Hindawi
Journal of Food Quality
Volume 2017, Article ID 4340869, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4340869
Research Article
Transparent Assessment of the Supervision
Information in China’s Food Safety: A Fuzzy-ANP
Comprehensive Evaluation Method
TingqiangChen,LeiWang,andJiningWang
SchoolofEconomicsandManagement,NanjingUniversityofTechnology,Nanjing211816,China
CorrespondenceshouldbeaddressedtoJiningWang;[email protected]
Received 26 November 2016; Accepted 19 February 2017; Published 20 March 2017
AcademicEditor:EgidioDeBenedetto
Copyright©2017TingqiangChenetal.ThisisanopenaccessarticledistributedundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense,
whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.
Improvingtransparencyoffoodsafetysupervisioninformationcanreducetheoccurrenceofinformationasymmetry,decrease
foodsafetyincidents,andpromotesociallyjointregulationforfoodsafety.Inthisstudy,anindexsystemoffoodsafetysupervision
informationtransparency(FSSIT)isconstructedusingthefuzzy-ANPcomprehensiveevaluationmodel.Usingthissystem,the
FSSITinChinaisevaluated.Atotalof1651questionnairescontaining139525dataarecollectedfromfoodanddrugadministration
(FDA),consumerassociation(CA),andmediaatthecentral,provincial,prefectural,andcountylevels.Empiricalresultsindicate
thattheFSSITachievesaqualifiedlevel;however,theworksofFDA,CA,andmediastillpresentdeficiencies.Theinformation
transparency in the entirety presents deficiencies and gradually declines when that in the administrative level decreases. The
economicdevelopmentlevelindirectlydeterminesthetransparencylevel,andthetransparencyleveldoesnotconformtoChina’s
currenteconomicdevelopmentlevel.
1.Introduction be reduced through the collective reputation mechanism
[9–12].
The State Council of the People’s Republic of China issued The gradual development of research on food safety
arrangementsonfoodsafetyworkin2016,andtheseprovi- supervision has shown that the information asymmetry of
sionsputemphasisonimprovingtheinformationdisclosure food safety supervision cannot be effectively reduced only
mechanism, promoting the construction of major informa- bysupervisionofthegovernmentandself-disciplineoffood
tiontechnologyprojects,andacceleratingsociallyjointreg- companies[13].Aneffectivesolutionistoconstructamode
ulationforfoodsafety.ThesearrangementshighlightChina’s of socially joint regulation for food safety such that all
attentiontofoodsafetyanditsinformationtransparency. foodsafetysupervisionsubjectscaneffectivelyandrationally
Informationoffoodsafetysupervisiondirectlyaffectsthe participateinthegovernanceoffoodsafety[2,14,15].
publictrustinallkindsoffoodsafetyinformation[1,2].Inthe At present, the domestic and international research on
degree of food safety supervision information transparency FSSIT is very rare. A latest research builds China’s index
(FSSIT), information transparency mainly refers to the fact system of food safety supervision transparency to evaluate
thatstakeholdershaveconvenientaccesstotheinformation its level in China’s food safety supervision departments
[3, 4], while food safety means food causes no harm to [16, 17]. However, the evaluation subjects are supervision
human health [5, 6]. From the perspective of a consumer, departments not social supervision subjects. Moreover, the
transparencyoffoodsafetyinformationisthewaytoachieve investigation content does not contain food safety supervi-
its supervision [7]. An important task in supervising trans- sionatthecountylevel.Meetingthecountry’srequirements
parencyoffoodsafetyinformationistherealizationofFSSIT ofbuildingahighlyefficientandsociallyjointmanagement
[8]. The behavior of food companies can be improved and systemisdifficult.Therefore,acomprehensiveandsystematic
thepossibilityofthesupervisiondepartmentderelictioncan studyonFSSITinChinaisstilllacking.
2 JournalofFoodQuality
In light of the above considerations, the index system 2.1.1. Food Safety Information Platform of Government.
of FSSIT is established in this study using the fuzzy-ANP Openness is the basis of transparency. The government
comprehensive evaluation model and on the basis of the sets up an effective food safety information platform that
laws and regulations of China’s food safety supervision can show the transparency of the supervision process. The
and existing literature analysis. A total of 1651 question- platform ensures public’s access right to food safety infor-
naires containing 139525 data are collected from food and mation [28, 29] improves the efficiency of public’s access
drugadministration(FDA),consumerassociation(CA),and to information [12], and publicizes food safety knowledge
[30]. According to the existing research results and the
media (in this paper, food and drug administration (FDA)
“Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China” (food
refers to the government departments responsible for the
safetylawhereinafter),thefoodsafetyinformationplatform
supervision of food and drug administration, consumer
of government should be subdivided into 13 indexes to
association(CA)referstotheorganizationsthatprotectthe
evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are overall situation of food
interests of consumers, and media refers to newspapers,
safetyinformation,guidinginformationofsupervisioninfor-
newswebsites,andtheWe-media)atthecentral,provincial,
mation, supervision information directory, key supervision
prefectural,andcountylevels.Onthebasisofthesedata,the
information, food safety standard information, food safety
FSSIT level is evaluated. The rest of the paper is organized
risk warning information, information on administrative
as follows. Section 2 presents the setup of the FSSIT index
punishmentforfoodsafetyissues,qualificationaccreditation
system.Section3introducesthefuzzy-ANPcomprehensive
information of food inspection agencies, name list of food
evaluation model and analyzes its applicability. Section 4 safetyinspectionagencies,namelistofproductionandbusi-
discussesanempiricalresearchbasedon1651questionnaires ness licenses, certification information of company quality
containing 139525 data from FDA, CA, and media at the system, supervision organization structure and personnel
central, provincial, prefectural, and county levels. Section 5 information,andfoodsafetycreditfileinformation[31–37].
discusses and analyzes the results of the empirical study.
Finally,Section6summarizesandelaboratestheconclusions
2.1.2.FoodSafetyAccidentEmergencyInformationofGovern-
ofthestudy.
ment. The emergency handling capability of FDA on food
safetyaccidentsdirectlyreflectsitsadministrativeefficiency
2.ConstructionofEvaluationIndexSystem [38]. Any serious problem in information transparency of
food safety accident can result in vicious rumor of “herd
FDA,CA,andmediaarethefoodsafetysupervisionsubjects instinct.”Therefore,FDAshouldmaintainasufficienttrans-
inChinaandarethemainpublishersofFSSITinthecountry. parency of food safety accident emergency information to
Theinformationreleasedbythesebodieshaswidecoverage reducetherumor.Accordingtotheexistingresearchresults
and high degree of public recognition. Food safety is the and “food safety law,” the food safety accident emergency
mostbasiclivelihoodproject,butthepublic’saccessrightto information of government should be subdivided into six
food safety information depends mainly on FDA, CA, and indexes to evaluate FSSIT; these indexes are food safety
media.Inaddition,othersubjectsoffoodsafetysupervision accident classification, accident disposal commanding sys-
temandresponsibilityinformation,preventionandwarning
stillpresentproblems,suchasindependentsupervisionand
mechanism information, disposal procedure information,
unreasonable supervision system [18]. Therefore, consumer
emergencysafeguardingmeasureinformation,andaccident
andothersupervisionsubjectsoffoodsafetypresentalimited
investigationanddisposalinformation[31,34,35,38].
effect on FSSIT. On this basis, this study evaluates China’s
FSSIT from three dimensions only: government, CA, and
media. 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
2.1. FSSIT of Government. The government plays a leading
results[35].ThesamplinginformationofFDAisadynamic
role in food safety supervision works such that low level of
qualitytestingcontentandisthemostimportantinformation
supervision information transparency negatively affects its
that FDA needs to disclose [31]. According to the existing
reputation [12]. These adverse effects are mainly as follows.
research results and “food safety law,” government food
First, FDA cannot fully obtain comprehensive information
safetysamplinginformationshouldbesubdividedintothree
from food companies and implement the supervision work
indexestoevaluateFSSIT;theseindexesaresamplingobject
owing to its own conditions [19–22]. Accordingly, food
information, sampling qualified information, and sampling
companies may utilize food safety supervision loopholes to
unqualifiedinformation[31,34,35].
harmtheinterestsofconsumers[23].Inthiscase,thesuper-
viseescapturesupervisors,governmentsupervisionbecomes
disordered [24], and the reputation of FDA becomes dam- 2.1.4. Information for Safeguarding the Government Supervi-
aged.Second,thesupervisioninformationofgovernmentis sionMechanism. FDAneedsaclear,transparentmechanism
relativelynontransparent;thus,FDAeasilyexperiencesgroup to safeguard food safety supervision. This mechanism can
trustcrisisincaseoffoodsafetyincident[25–27].Therefore, promote the responsibility clarification and enhance public
thefollowingfouraspectscanbeconsideredinimprovingthe awarenessonFDAandisanimportantsteptoimprovethe
FSSITofgovernment. FSSIT of government. According to the existing research
JournalofFoodQuality 3
resultsand“foodsafetylaw,”theinformationforsafeguard- information,annualreportfordisclosuresupervision,man-
ingthegovernmentsupervisionmechanismshouldbesub- agementmechanismfordisclosingsupervisioninformation,
dividedintofiveindexestoevaluateFSSIT;theseindexesare supervision responsibility mechanism, and perfect degree
open management mechanism information of supervision andoperationsituationoffoodsafetyinformationplatform
information,annualreportfordisclosuresupervision,report [27,31,35,39,42].
processing information, supervision responsibility mecha-
nism information, and supervision evaluation mechanism
2.3. FSSIT of Media. Media is also an important force in
information[31,34,35,38,39].
socially joint regulation for food safety. As one of the
main publishers of food safety information, media plays
2.2. FSSIT of CA. Problems in food safety and its supervi- an irreplaceable role in the food safety social supervision.
sion are characterized by sociality. However, the traditional Media involves in socially joint regulation to improve the
modelof“singlefoodsafetysupervision”ismonopolizedby supervisionefficiencyoffoodsafety[27,44]andprotectthe
the government and excludes public supervision; thus, this public’saccessrighttofoodsafetyinformation.Therefore,this
model presents low supervision efficiency and poor super- studyimprovestheFSSITofmediamainlyfromthefollowing
visioninformationtransparency.Accordingtotheempirical twoaspects.
studyontheAmericanfoodsafetysupervision,government
supervisioninsignificantlyreducestheoutbreakoffoodborne 2.3.1.SupervisionInformationofMedia. Mediaplaysaunique
diseases [40]. Therefore, the construction of socially joint role in the exposure of food safety problems. During the
regulation mode for food safety [41] is an effective way to “Sanlumilkpowder”incidentorthe“Shuanghuiclenbuterol”
reducetheprobabilityoffoodsafetyproblemsandimprove incident, media expanded the influence through the report
the entire FSSIT [35]. CA is an important force in socially in the early stage and then continued to place pressure on
joint regulation for food safety. Accordingly, this study thegovernmentsupervisionworkbytrackingreportsinthe
improves the FSSIT of CA mainly from the following three later stage [27]. According to the existing research results
aspects. and“foodsafetylaw,”thesupervisioninformationofmedia
should be subdivided into four indexes to evaluate FSSIT;
these indexes are food safety incident reports, food safety
2.2.1.SupervisionInformationofCA. ParticipationofCAin
incident tracking reports, authenticity and impartiality of
food safety supervision can reduce the information asym-
foodsafetyreport,andsocialsupervisionfunctioninforma-
metry of food safety and improve the efficiency of public
tionofmedia[27,31,35,39,43].
participation[31]. Moreover, CA can use the social punish-
menteffecttoproduceadeterrentagainsttheillegalbehavior
of food companies [12]. According to the existing research 2.3.2.FoodSafetyPublicityofMedia. Thepromotionoflaws,
results and “food safety law,” the supervision information regulations, standards, and knowledge on food safety relies
of CA should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate on media. However, the present performance of media in
FSSIT; these indexes are supervision mechanism informa- this area is relatively weak and needs to be strengthened.
tion,supervisionorganizationstructureandpersonnelcom- According to the existing research results and “food safety
position,andsupervisionevaluationinformation[27,31,35, law,”foodsafetypublicityofmediashouldbesubdividedinto
39,42]. twoindexestoevaluateFSSIT;theseindexesarepublicityof
foodsafetylawsandregulationsandpublicityoffoodsafety
standardsandknowledge[27,31,35,39,43].
2.2.2. Integrity Building Information of CA. The important
By combining the experts’ opinion (the Delphi expert
works of CA are to conduct integrity building [43], regu-
group consists of 15 experts, including 6 food safety man-
late the behavior of food companies, and warn consumers
agement professors from colleges and universities, 3 FDA
through the “black name list system,” credit rating, and
experts,2foodsafetymediaexperts,2CAexperts,and2food
othermeans.Accordingtotheexistingresearchresultsand
businessexperts)usingtheDelphimethod,theindexsystem
“food safety law,” the integrity building information of CA
ofFSSITisconstructedandisshowninTable1.
should be subdivided into three indexes to evaluate FSSIT;
these indexes are integrity building standard information,
3.EvaluationModel
name list of accredited company brands, and name list of
nonaccreditedcompanybrands[27,31,35,39,42,43].
The fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model is com-
posedoftheanalyticnetworkprocess(ANP)andthefuzzy
2.2.3. Information for Safeguarding the Supervision Mecha- comprehensive evaluation method. The ANP compensates
nism of CA. Sound supervision mechanism must be devel- the defects of the analytic hierarchy process [45], and
opedtoimprovethesupervisionefficiencyofCA.Thesocial the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method based on the
supervisionfunctionofCAcanbestembodythesupervision membership theory of fuzzy mathematics effectively eval-
role[38].Accordingtotheexistingresearchresultsand“food uates qualitative indexes [46]. Therefore, the fuzzy-ANP
safetylaw,”theinformationforsafeguardingthesupervision comprehensiveevaluationmodelpresentsmanyadvantages
mechanismofCAshouldbesubdividedintofiveindexesto in evaluation and analysis. In the process of food safety
evaluateFSSIT;theseindexesaresocialsupervisionfunction supervision,thesamefoodsafetysupervisionsubjectsexhibit
4 JournalofFoodQuality
Table1:IndexsystemofFSSIT.
Objective First-levelindex Second-levelindex Third-levelindex
Overallsituationoffoodsafetyinformation(C11)
Guidinginformationforsupervisioninformation(C12)
Supervisioninformationdisclosingdirectory(C13)
Keyinformationofsupervision(C14)
Standardinformationoffoodsafety(C15)
Warninginformationoffoodsafetyrisk(C16)
Informationplatformof Informationonadministrativepunishmentoffoodsafetyissue
FSSIT(A) FSSITofgovernment
foodsafetyof (C17)
(B1) government(C1) Qualificationaccreditationinformationoffoodinspection
agency(C18)
Namelistoffoodsafetyinspectionagencies(C19)
Namelistofproductionandbusinesslicenses(C110)
Certificationinformationofcompanyqualitysystem(C111)
Supervisionorganizationstructureandpersonnelcomposition
information(C112)
Foodsafetycreditfileinformation(C113)
Foodsafetyaccidentclassificationinformation(C21)
Accidentdisposalorganizationandcommandingsystemand
Foodsafetyaccident responsibilityinformation(C22)
FSSIT(A) FSSITofgovernment
(B1) emoefrggoevnecrynimnefonrtm(Cat2i)on PreventioDnisapnodsawlaprrnoicnegdumreecihnafonrismmatiinofnor(mC2a4t)ion(C23)
Emergencyandsafeguardinginformation(C25)
Accidentinvestigationanddisposalinformation(C26)
Foodsafetysampling Samplingobjectinformation(C31)
FSSITofgovernment
FSSIT(A) (B1) goinvfeorrnmmaetinotn(Cof3) SaSmamplpinlinggunquqaulaifiliefidedininfofromrmataitoinon(C(C323)3)
Openmanagementinformationofsupervisioninformation
Informationfor (C41)
FSSIT(A) FSSITofgovernment safeguardingthe Annualreportforsupervisioninformation(C42)
(B1) governmentsupervision Reportprocessinginformation(C43)
mechanism(C4) Supervisionresponsibilitymechanisminformation(C44)
Supervisionevaluationmechanisminformation(C45)
Supervisionmechanisminformation(C51)
FSSIT(A) Supervisioninformation Supervisionorganizationstructureandpersonnelcomposition
FSSITofCA(B2) ofCA(C5) information(C52)
Supervisionevaluationinformation(C53)
Integritybuildingstandardinformation(C61)
Integritybuilding
FSSIT(A) FSSITofCA(B2) informationofCA(C6) Namelistofaccreditedcompanybrands(C62)
Namelistofnon-accreditedcompanybrands(C63)
Informationofsocialsupervisionfunction(C71)
Informationfor Disclosureannualreportofthesupervisioninformation(C72)
Disclosuremanagementmechanisminformationofsupervision
safeguardingthe
FSSIT(A) FSSITofCA(B2) supervisionmechanism information(C73)
ofCA(C7) Supervisionresponsibilitymechanisminformation(C74)
Perfectdegreeandoperationsituationoffoodsafety
informationplatform(C75)
Foodsafetyincidentreport(C81)
FSSIT(A) FSSITofmedia(B3) Superovfismioendiianf(oCr8m)ation AuthenFtiocoitdysaanfdetyiminpcairdteianltittyraocfkfionogdrseapfoertyt(rCep82o)rt(C83)
Socialsupervisionfunctioninformationofmedia(C84)
FSSIT(A) FSSITofmedia(B3) Publiocfitmyfeodriafo(oCd9)safety PuPbulibciltiyciotyfofofofodosdafseatfyestytalnadwasradnsdanredgkunlaotwiolnedsg(Ce(91C)92)
JournalofFoodQuality 5
A
The control
layer
B B B
1 2 3
C4 C1 C5 C9 RepreDsents the
internal of the D
element set influence
C2 C each other
8
E
C3 C6 C7 The network
layer F
Represents E
C11 and F influence
C C C each other
21 12 13
C C C C C G
22 41 14 15 71
C C C C C C
23 42 16 17 72 81
C C C C C C C C C H
24 43 31 18 19 61 51 73 82
C C C C C C C C C C Represents that
25 44 32 110 111 62 52 74 91 83
C C C C C C C C C C G has a effect
26 45 33 112 113 63 53 75 92 84
on H
The object
layer
Evaluation object
Figure1:NetworkstructureofANPofFSSIT.
a clear hierarchy. In other words, the various types of food Table2:Scalemethodof1–9incomparison.
safety supervision subjects show a significant dependency
Scale Definition
relationship. Thus, the influencing factors of FSSIT possess
a typical level and dependent relationship. Accordingly, the Element𝑖andelement𝑗presentthe
1
sameimportance
indexsystemofFSSITformsanorganicwholewithahierar-
chicalnetworkstructure.AfewindexesofFSSITcannotbe Element𝑖ismoderatelymore
3 importantthanelement𝑗
directly quantified because they present intervals and fuzzy
characteristics on the value. Thus, evaluating FSSIT using 5 Element𝑖isthstarnonelgelmymenotr𝑗eimportant
the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation model is highly
scientificandapplicable. 7 Eleimmepnotr𝑖taisntvethryansterloenmgelyntm𝑗ore
Element𝑖isextremelymoreimportant
3.1. Constructing the Network Structure of ANP. In the net- 9 thanelement𝑗
workstructureofFSSIT,thecontrollayercontainsthetarget
Medianvaluesofthetwoadjacent
andcriteria;thetargetisA,andthecriteriaarethefirst-level 2,4,6,8
judgments
indexes of the index system including B1, B2, and B3. The Theimportancescaleofelement𝑗to
networklayerincludesninesetsofelementsthatcorrespond Reciprocal element𝑖
tosecond-andthird-levelindexesoftheindexsystem;these
sets are C1,C2,C3,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8, and C9. According to
themutualinfluencerelationshipwithintheevaluationindex
set of elements and between the set of elements and the
indexes,thenetworkstructureofANPisconstructedandis containsasetofelements𝐶𝑁 (𝑁=1,...,𝑛),and𝐶𝑖contains
showninFigure1. elements 𝐶𝑖1,𝐶𝑖2,...,𝐶𝑖𝑛, 𝑖 = 1,2,...,𝑁. According to the
criterionofthecontrollayerelement𝐵𝑠,useelement𝐶𝑗1 of
3.2.DeterminationoftheIndexWeight. WiththehelpofANP 𝐶𝑗 asthesubcriterion,constructthejudgmentmatrixbased
andDelphiexpertscoring,theweightofeachFSSITindexes onthescalemethodof1–9asshowninTable2,andobtainthe
isdetermined.Thespecificprocessisasfollows. normalizedfeaturevector(𝑤𝑖1,𝑤𝑖2,...,𝑤𝑖𝑛)𝑇.Then,testthe
consistencyoftheobtainedvector;thetestpasseswhenCRis
Step1. Buildasupermatrix.AssumethatANPcontrollayer lessthan0.1;otherwise,thevalueofthematrixelementneeds
criterion contains 𝐵𝑠 (𝑠 = 1,2,...,𝑚), the network layer tobeadjusted.Similarly,obtainthenormalizedfeaturevector
6 JournalofFoodQuality
ofotherelements,andthenobtainasupermatrix,denotedas 3.4.DeterminationofFuzzyRelationMatrix. Thefuzzyrela-
𝑊𝑖𝑗. tionmatrixisdefinedasfollows:
𝑟 𝑟 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑟
𝑤 (𝑗1) 𝑤 (𝑗2) ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑤 (𝑗𝑛𝑗) 11 12 1𝑀
𝑊𝑖𝑗 =[[[[[[𝑤𝑖𝑖12...(𝑗1) 𝑤𝑖𝑖22...(𝑗2) ⋅d⋅⋅ 𝑤𝑖𝑖12...(𝑗𝑛𝑗)]]]]]]. (1) 𝑅=(𝑟𝑖𝑗)𝑁×𝑀 =[[[[[[𝑟2...1 𝑟2...2 ⋅d⋅⋅ 𝑟2...𝑀]]]]]]. (5)
[ ]
[𝑟 𝑟 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑟 ]
[𝑤 (𝑗1) 𝑤 (𝑗2) ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑤 (𝑗𝑛𝑗)] 𝑁1 𝑁2 𝑁𝑀
𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
Amongthem,𝑅isamemberoftheindexnumber𝑖ofthe
𝐶th𝑖e1,The𝐶le𝑖2em,.ce.on.lt,u𝐶imn𝑖𝑛n𝐶in𝑖v,et𝐶cht𝑖eo.nrI𝑊fotfh𝑖𝑗𝑊e=e𝑖𝑗l0eim.nIentnhttihsiensst𝐶uamd𝑗yeisiwsuantyha,efftheecelteesmudpebneyrt l𝑖etvoeslenluecmtbtheerl𝑗eavneldV𝑟𝑖/𝑖𝑗th=etnhuemnubmerboefrpoafrtthiceipinadtiincgateovranluuamtiboenr.
matrixofothercontrolelementscanbeobtained.Therefore,
the super matrix 𝑊 under the criterion 𝐵𝑠 is obtained as 3.5.DeterminationoftheComprehensiveEvaluationLevel. A
follows: comprehensiveevaluationvectorisestablishedbythefuzzy
comprehensive operation of the weight set and the fuzzy
𝑤11 𝑤12 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑤1𝑁 relationmatrix.
[ ]
[𝑤 𝑤 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑤 ]
[ 21 22 2𝑁] 𝑆 =𝑊 ×𝑅
𝑊=[[ .. .. .. ]]. (2) 𝑖 𝑖
[ . . d . ]
𝑟 𝑟 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑟
11 12 1𝑀
[𝑤 𝑤 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑤 ] [ ]
𝑁1 𝑁2 𝑁𝑁 [𝑟 𝑟 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑟 ]
[ 21 22 2𝑀]
Step 2. Construct the weighted matrix and weighted super =(𝑤𝑖1,𝑤𝑖2,...,𝑤𝑖𝑁)[[[ ... ... d ... ]]] (6)
matrix.Underthecriterion𝐵𝑠,theimportanceoftherelative
criterion of element 𝐶𝑗 (𝑗 = 1,2,...,𝑁) is compared to [𝑟𝑁1 𝑟𝑁2 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑟𝑁𝑀]
obtain a normalized row sequence vector (𝑎1𝑗,𝑎2𝑗,...,𝑎𝑁𝑗)
=(𝑠 ,𝑠 ,...,𝑠 ).
suchthataweightedmatrixisobtainedasfollows: 1 2 𝑀
𝑎 𝑎 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑎 In the comprehensive evaluation vector of FSSIT, 𝑀 is
11 12 1𝑁
[[𝑎 𝑎 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑎 ]] equal to 5. Therefore, the final FSSIT score obtained by the
𝐴=[[[[ 2...1 2...2 d 2...𝑁]]]] w25ei×gh𝑠t4e+d0av×er𝑠a5g.emethodis𝑇=100×𝑠1+75×𝑠2+50×𝑠3+
(3)
[𝑎 𝑎 ⋅⋅⋅ 𝑎 ]
𝑁1 𝑁2 𝑁𝑁
4.EmpiricalResearch
𝑁
(𝑎 ∈[0,1], ∑𝑎 =1) 4.1. Questionnaire Design. The aims of this study are as
𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗
follows:evaluatetheleveloftheentireFSSIT,varioustypesof
foodsafetysupervisionsubjects,anddifferentadministrative
Therefore, the weighted super matrix is constructed as levels and regions in China; explore the existing problems;
follows: boosttheimprovementinfoodsafetymanagement;promote
the public’s access right to food safety information. On the
𝑊=𝑊 =𝐴×𝑊=(𝑎 ×𝑊 )
𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 basisoftheFSSITindexsystem,thequestionnaireforFDA,
(4) CA, and media is designed. The five-grade classification
(𝑖=1,2,...,𝑁, 𝑗=1,2,...,𝑁). methodisusedtoscoreeachiteminthequestionnaire(each
itemisassignedacorrespondingleveloffivescoringcriteria
On the basis of the results of the super matrix and to ensure the objectivity of scoring.); “good” means 100
weighted super matrix, the local weight and overall weight points,“relativelygood”means75points,“general”means50
of FSSIT indexes can be obtained. The weights used in this points,“relativelypoor”means25points,and“poor”means0
studyarelocalweights. point(thefinalFSSITscoreratingcriteriaareasfollows:100
pointsmeanafullmark,60pointsandabovearequalified,
3.3.DeterminationofEvaluationRatingandRules. Theeval- the score within [0,30] is poor, the score within [30,60]
uationratingisassumedasfollows:V=(V1,V2,...,V𝑁) (𝑁= is relatively poor, the score within [60,75] is general, the
1,2,..., number of ranks). The evaluation rating is divided scorewithin[75,90]isrelativelygood,andthescorewithin
intofivegrades:good,relativelygood,general,relativelypoor, [90,100] is well.). We conduct a presurvey to carry out the
andpoor;thevaluesofthesegradesare100,75,50,25,and0. survey.
JournalofFoodQuality 7
Table3:Testofreliabilityandvalidity.
Subjectofinvestigation Cronbach’salpha 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 0.000
Table4:Characteristicsofdifferentadministrativelevels.
FDA CA Entirety
Administrativelevel
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 1
4.2. Sample. FDA is the government department that is Table 3 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha values of FDA,
responsibleforfoodsafetysupervision,accordingtothe15th CA, and media are 0.986, 0.983, and 0.971, all of which are
provision of Regulations of the People’s Republic of China above 0.9. Therefore, the measure of FDA, CA, and media
ontheDisclosureofGovernmentInformation.FDAshould presents good internal consistency and stability, and the
initiate in disclosing food safety supervision information, reliabilityisquitegood.TheKMOvaluesofFDAandCAare
andthisinformationshouldbeaccessibletothepublic.CA above0.9,indicatingthatthefactoranalysisisquitegoodand
canreasonablysupportthesupervisionworksofgovernment thevalidityisquitehigh.TheKMOvalueofmediaisabove
for food safety and reduce the information asymmetry of 0.8,indicatingthatthefactoranalysisisgoodandthevalidity
food safety. Media can use its capability to improve the ishigh.
disseminationoffoodsafetysupervisioninformation,deter Thecharacteristicsofdifferentadministrativelevels,geo-
foodcompaniesthroughthesocialeffectofpunishment,and graphical regions, and economic regions of FDA, CA, and
rectify the behavior of food safety supervision department media are shown in Tables 4–6. (For the convenience of
in government with the help of the collective reputation. statistics and analysis, the central is compared in statistics;
Therefore, FDA, CA, and media are used as investigation therefore, the central and provincial results appear side
objectsinevaluatingChina’sFSSIT. by side. At the central level, we only investigate China’s
The survey started from June 2016 to October 2016 and FoodandDrugAdministration(CFDA),China’sConsumers
focusesmainlyonFDA,CA,andmediaatthecentral,provin- Association,andnationalmedia,suchasPeople’sDaily.)
cial,prefectural,andcountylevels.Toensuretheobjectivity
ThesurveyinvolvesFDA,CA,andmediaatthecentral,
ofthesurveyresults,thesurveydatawereobtainedfromthe
provincial, prefectural, and county levels. However, when
officialwebsitesofFDA,CA,andmediaorbytheassistance
investigating municipalities directly under the central gov-
ofatelephonesurvey.Thedatawerecollectedbytheendof
ernment, we only investigate FDA and CA. No specific
September 2016. In this survey, a questionnaire represents
subdivision is applied to prefecture and county. The media
a food safety supervision subject. A total of 697 completed
surveymainlyinvolvesthemainstreammediaandWe-media
questionnaireswereobtainedfromFDA;3wereinvalidand
atthecentralandprovinciallevels.
694werevalidamongthesequestionnaires,andtheeffective
ratewas99.570%.Atotalof697questionnaireswereobtained
from CA; 12 were invalid and 685 were valid among these 4.4.EvaluationandAnalysis
questionnaires, and the effective rate was 98.278%. A total
of 300 questionnaires were obtained from media; 28 were 4.4.1. Weight Calculation. On the basis of the above weight
invalidand272werevalidamongthesequestionnaires,and calculation method and the help of the Super decision
theeffectiveratewas90.667%.Therefore,1694questionnaires software,theweightoftheindexesisobtainedandisshown
werecompleted;43wereinvalidand1651werevalidamong inTable7.
these questionnaires, and the effective rate was 97.462%.
Finally,weobtained139525validsurveydata. 4.4.2.FuzzyComprehensiveCalculation. Onthebasisof1651
questionnaires containing 139525 data from FDA, CA, and
4.3.DataAnalysis. Inthisstudy,theSPSSsoftwareisusedto media and using the fuzzy-ANP comprehensive evaluation
testthereliabilityandvalidityofthesurveyresults,asshown model,thetransparencyscoresofvarioustypesoffoodsafety
inTable3. supervision subjects are obtained. The scores in different
8 JournalofFoodQuality
Table5:Characteristicsofdifferentgeographicalregions.
FDA CA Media Entirety
Geographicalregions Province
Frequency Proportion Frequency Proportion Frequency Proportion Frequency Proportion
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
EastChina 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
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
NorthChina 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
Henan 40 0.058 39 0.057 10 0.037 89 0.054
CentralChina 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
Guangdong 41 0.059 41 0.060 18 0.066 100 0.061
SouthChina 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
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
SouthwestChina 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
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
NorthwestChina 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
Heilongjiang 32 0.046 32 0.047 10 0.037 74 0.045
NortheastChina 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 1.000
administrative levels, geographical regions, and economic showthattheFSSITworkinFDA,CA,andmediapresentsa
regionsinChinaareshowninTables8–11. certaindegreeofloss.Inaddition,theoverallscoreofFSSIT
As shown in Table 8, analyzing various types of food shows that China’s entire FSSIT reaches an acceptable level
safety supervision subjects reveals that the FSSIT of media atpresent.Inotherwords,Chinahasexertedmucheffortto
obtainsthehighestscoreandatagenerallevel.TheFSSITof improve FSSIT, but a certain extent of work loss still exists.
FDAandCAobtainsalowerscorebutataqualifiedlevel.The Therefore, each type of of food safety supervision subjects
scoresofthevarioustypesoffoodsafetysupervisionsubjects needstoimprovetheFSSITwork.
JournalofFoodQuality 9
Table6:Characteristicsofdifferenteconomicregions.
FDA CA Media Entirety
Economicregions Province
Frequency Proportion Frequency Proportion Frequency Proportion Frequency Proportion
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
Eastpart
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
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
Central
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
Heilongjiang 32 0.046 32 0.047 10 0.037 74 0.045
Northeast 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
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
West
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 1.000
Table9indicatesthattheFSSITofFDAandCAgradually Table 10 shows that, in the seven geographical regions
declineswhenthatattheadministrativeleveldecreases.The in China, Eastern and Southern China obtain the highest
FSSITscoresofdifferentadministrativelevelsshowthatthe scoreandatthegenerallevel.North,Northeast,Southwest,
food safety supervision works at the provincial level are Northwest, and Central China obtain a lower score but at
morestandardizedthanthoseattheprefecturalandcounty a qualified level. However, analyzing Tables 8 and 9 shows
levels.Thelocalsupervisionworksonfoodsafetyinformation that the FSSIT of different geographical regions is mostly
transparencypresentdeficiencies.Amongthem,theworkat at a poor level; this poor performance is due to the poor
thecountylevelistheworst.Insuchacase,thepublic’spanic levelofCAatthecountylevel.Comparingtheentiretyand
psychology and “herd instinct” easily occur in case of food centrallevelwiththesevengeographicalregionsshowsthat
safety accident. By contrast, the work at the central level is theFSSITatthecentrallevelpresentsthehighestscoreand
themoststandardizedandobtainsthehighestscore. achieves a better level. The low scores of each geographical
10 JournalofFoodQuality
Table7:Indexweight.
First-levelindex Weight Second-levelindex Weight Third-levelindex Weight
C11 0.097
C12 0.081
C13 0.078
C14 0.097
C15 0.091
C16 0.078
B1 0.328 C1 0.250 C17 0.065
C18 0.075
C19 0.037
C110 0.081
C111 0.075
C112 0.065
C113 0.081
C21 0.220
C22 0.110
B1 0.328 C2 0.250 C23 0.127
C24 0.127
C25 0.212
C26 0.203
C31 0.250
B1 0.328 C3 0.250 C32 0.250
C33 0.500
C41 0.147
C42 0.197
B1 0.328 C4 0.250 C43 0.255
C44 0.255
C45 0.147
C51 0.500
B2 0.260 C5 0.333 C52 0.250
C53 0.250
C61 0.260
B2 0.260 C6 0.333 C62 0.328
C63 0.413
C71 0.286
C72 0.286
B2 0.260 C7 0.333 C73 0.143
C74 0.143
C75 0.143
C81 0.143
B3 0.413 C8 0.500 C82 0.286
C83 0.286
C84 0.286
B3 0.413 C9 0.500 C91 0.333
C92 0.667
Table8:Scoresofvarioustypesoffoodsafetysupervisionsubjects.
Evaluationgoal Score Grade Rank Evaluationgoal Score Grade Rank
Media 66.675 General 1 Entirety 56.963 Relativelypoor 3
FDA 57.455 Relativelypoor 2 CA 40.895 Relativelypoor 4