Those who falsify test reports will be barred from working in this field!

Thread Content

China’s first local legislation specifically aimed at the inspection and testing industry is expected to be introduced this year. Once implemented, such regulations will impose constraints on this industry, which has been growing rapidly but also has encountered many negative aspects. Recently, the 32nd meeting of the 14th Shanghai People’s Congress held panel discussions on the \"Draft Regulations on Inspection and Testing in Shanghai\". What changes will this much-discussed draft regulation bring to the inspection and testing industry? From this, what directions in industry regulation can we expect to see in the future? Certification Expert has been paying close attention to this topic recently, and has compiled the key points for your reference. If you have any ideas, you can also leave them in the comments section at the bottom. The process of building Shanghai into a science and innovation hub with global influence is inseparable from the ‘stimulation’ provided by the inspection and testing industry” ； The quality of the construction also needs to be verified by the inspection and testing industry. The development of the inspection and testing industry in Shanghai has been rapid in recent years: by the end of 2015, there were 731 inspection and testing institutions in Shanghai that held metrological certification, with 47,000 employees working in these institutions. In 2015, these institutions issued 19.54 million inspection and testing reports, with operating revenues reaching 16.42 billion yuan, a 15% increase compared to 2014. Currently, the annual revenue of Shanghai’s inspection and testing industry accounts for nearly 10% of the country’s total. The city has 47 quality inspection centers, including those specializing in **satellite navigation and positioning services as well as robotics products**. Its technical support and service capabilities in areas such as new energy vehicles, biomedicine, and intelligent manufacturing are among the best in the country. On the other side of rapid development is the relative lagging of laws and regulations. Shanghai’s Regulations on Inspection and Testing, the first local legislation in the country aimed at the inspection and testing industry, is expected to be introduced this year at the earliest. According to the draft formulated under this regulation, any activity that accepts commissions from the public to carry out inspection and testing is subject to regulation, regardless of whether it holds a relevant license or not. This much-discussed draft regulation will prompt deeper reflection across the entire inspection and testing industry. So, what are the new provisions in the Draft Regulations that deserve attention? 1. Unqualified agencies are no longer outside the law’s reach. Take the booming business of indoor air testing as an example: some testing agencies lack the necessary qualifications and capabilities, or are merely manufacturers of testing equipment, yet they still dare to take on projects and issue test reports. They even deliberately distort air quality data in order to intimidate consumers and persuade them to purchase expensive air purification services. Regulatory authorities admit that, in the face of these \"unregulated institutions\" and \"illegal institutions,\" the lack of relevant laws and regulations fails to exert sufficient deterrence. The Shanghai Regulations on Inspection and Testing (hereinafter referred to as the \"Draft Regulations\") may put an end to the above situation. The draft regulations specify that \"activities of conducting inspection and testing on commission for the public within the administrative jurisdiction of this city… are subject to these regulations,\" which means that regardless of whether a qualification permit is obtained or not, any activity involving inspection and testing carried out on commission for the public falls under regulatory oversight. 2. Fraud will result in a ban from practicing the profession. To increase the cost of violations and uphold the authority of the regulations, the draft regulations establish corresponding penalties in the chapter on legal responsibilities. Legal responsibilities have been established for the behavioral norms established. Appropriate legal responsibilities have been established for the obligations imposed by these regulations on inspection and testing agencies, such as the obligation to disclose information, the obligation to report significant information, the obligation to provide universal services, the obligation not to issue false reports, and the obligation not to forge or alter the seals of the agency or the signatures of its staff. It is worth noting that for serious violations such as issuing false reports, in addition to ordering corrections and imposing fines, the draft regulations also stipulate that such entities shall not be allowed to undertake inspection and testing tasks for three years; meanwhile, the directly responsible managers and inspection and testing personnel are subject to a certain period of industry ban. The Draft Regulations also increase the cost of violations through credit constraints, thereby encouraging honest business practices: First, the supervision and management departments for inspection and testing shall include information on administrative penalties imposed on inspection and testing agencies and personnel in the municipal public credit information service platform ； Second, testing and inspection agencies and personnel with poor credit ratings are identified as key targets for supervision, with an increased frequency of oversight ； Third, regarding testing and inspection institutions and personnel with poor credit ratings, the relevant authorities impose restrictions in accordance with the law when it comes to **procurement, awarding honors, or providing policy support. During the deliberations, some committee members argued that there were too many penalty provisions and that the penalties imposed were too mild. Given the significant social impact of illegal activities in the field of inspection and testing, it was necessary to increase the severity of these penalties. Additionally, it was important to make full use of the city’s public credit information platform to strengthen credit-based sanctions and urge organizations to fulfill their relevant responsibilities. “Prohibiting the undertaking of **inspection and testing projects for three years is not strict enough! ”A committee member suggested that the requirement stating that testing and inspection agencies punished for providing false data or results must not undertake such testing and inspection projects for three years could lead to misunderstandings ； It is recommended to further refine the regulations on credit management and coordinated penalties, to strengthen the centralized management of credit information related to testing and inspection agencies, and to establish a \"list of those with serious credit violations\" for public disclosure in cases of severe illegal activities. 3. Public institutions should not refuse to conduct inspections just because there is no risk involved. In Shanghai’s current inspection and testing industry, there is also a strange phenomenon: businesses are available, but they are not carried out. According to investigations by the Shanghai quality supervision authorities, testing and inspection agencies generally refuse to conduct tests at the request of individuals, often citing the inability to determine the origin of the sample or the purpose for which it is being sent, as a way to avoid risks. “Based on the principle of market voluntariness, testing agencies can certainly choose not to make a profit. ”Tian Yilong, deputy director of the Certification and Supervision Department of the Shanghai Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau, expressed understanding for the concerns of some testing agencies. However, he emphasized that objectively, this approach of refusing services on the grounds of potential risks is a form of \"one-size-fits-all\" treatment that excludes many consumers with legitimate demands as well. Therefore, the Draft Regulation establishes an obligation of \"universal service\", stipulating that testing and inspection agencies, which are legal entities in the form of public institutions and accept commissions from the public, must not refuse to provide such services within the scope of projects announced to the public (except in four circumstances, such as those that affect the fairness of the commissioned tasks). 4. Hazards to public safety must not be concealed. In the 2012 “drug chicken” scandal, aside from food safety issues, another topic that attracted significant attention was this: when testing agencies discover problems that could pose a serious threat to public safety, should they adhere to confidentiality agreements or report them to the regulatory authorities? At that time, an investigation conducted by the Shanghai Food Safety Office revealed that between 2010 and 2011, among the samples tested by the Shanghai Institute for Food and Drug Control on behalf of Yum! Brands, which owns KFC, 8 batches had unacceptable levels of antibiotic residues. These samples came from Shandong Liuhe Group, which was found to be using large amounts of antibiotics and hormones in the raising of white-feathered chickens. As the Shanghai Food and Drug Inspection Institute, which is under the Shanghai Food and Drug Administration, it failed to promptly inform its superior authorities about the fact that the relevant samples were unqualified ； KFC, which received the unqualified inspection report, did not cease its partnership with Liuhe Group until August 2012. Luo Peixin, a professor at East China University of Political Science and Law, said that some testing agencies insist on fulfilling their confidentiality obligations under the contract and do not report relevant information to **. However, the right to refuse testimony cannot be abused; for example, when a testing agency discovers that the sample submitted poses a threat to public safety, the private interests established by the confidentiality agreement with the client must give way to the greater value of public safety. It is worth noting that the draft regulations establish an obligation to report \"significant information\"; it stipulates that testing and inspection agencies must immediately report to the regulatory authorities if, during such tests, they find that the items being inspected do not meet legal requirements or mandatory standards, and that this could pose a serious threat to the environment or public safety. This prevents testing and inspection agencies from using reasons such as contract constraints or trade secrets as a shield anymore. 5. Online trading platforms must verify the authenticity of testing institutions. In addition to requiring certain testing and inspection institutions to operate openly, the draft regulations also mandate that these institutions fulfill their obligation to disclose information, by displaying the certification and accreditation documents they hold in prominent locations in their business premises, on their official websites, and on the main pages of their online trading platform accounts. The public information shall be true and complete, and any changes to its content shall be updated promptly. For consumers, this regulation respects their right to know and reduces the risk of being deceived due to a lack of information. However, some testing agencies are skeptical, arguing that it constitutes a mandatory obligation to disclose information and that the provisions are somewhat excessive. “For ‘trust-based’ products and services, laws generally impose mandatory disclosure requirements. ”Tian Yilong said that inspection and testing is a type of \"trust-based\" service. As a service that requires high standards, significant technical expertise, and strong professionalism, it is difficult for ordinary consumers to determine whether the relevant agencies have the necessary capabilities and qualifications; moreover, it is hard to assess the quality of such services even after consumption has taken place ； Even if it can be evaluated, the cost is very high. Therefore, establishing mandatory information disclosure obligations is necessary to effectively protect consumers’ legitimate rights and interests from being infringed. Inspection and testing agencies must make relevant information public, and online trading platforms should also conduct checks. Referencing laws and regulations such as the Food Safety Law, the Consumer Protection Law, and the Shanghai Consumer Protection Regulations, the draft regulations stipulate that providers of online trading platforms must verify the qualification certificates and accreditation documents of the testing and inspection institutions operating on their platforms, and urge them to make such information publicly available on the main page of their platform operations. In the event of illegal activities such as false descriptions or testing and inspection beyond authorized scope, they must report them to the regulatory authorities. Is it appropriate to keep the original records for at least 6 years? The original records and reports of inspection and testing activities are the primary evidence for verifying and understanding the inspection and testing process. To address the issue of unverifiable records after disputes arise, the Draft Regulations stipulate that testing and inspection agencies shall maintain archives of the original records and reports, and retain them for at least 6 years. If the client has objections to the inspection and testing data or results, the inspection and testing institution shall provide an explanation ； If the client requests it, the inspection and testing agency shall provide the original records and other supporting documents. “This provision establishes a retroactive verification mechanism, which helps address the issue of unverifiable records after disputes arise. ”Du Yuemei, deputy director of the Finance and Economics Committee of the Shanghai People’s Congress, said that during the research, some suggestions were put forward indicating that different industries have varying requirements regarding the retention of original inspection and testing records and reports; establishing a unified retention period of 6 years would be costly, difficult to implement, and challenging to enforce ； To meet the needs of clients, certain conditions should be set regarding the original records and other supporting documents to be provided by testing and inspection agencies, in order to reduce the burden on these agencies. To this end, it is recommended that the rules regarding the retention period for original records and reports by testing and inspection agencies be made more specific; for agencies with relevant qualifications, this period should be aligned with the validity period of those qualifications, while for agencies without such qualifications, it should be linked to the statute of limitations ； Specific provisions are made regarding the conditions under which the client is required to provide original records and other supporting documents, clarifying in what circumstances such records and documents must be supplied. - End -