【哈佛大学法学院Jacob Gersen教授访谈】绝佳时期：Jacob Gersen教授论食品法的崛起

绝佳时期：Jacob Gersen教授论食品法的崛起

Michael Zuckerman, 2015年9月29日

中国人民大学食品安全治理协同创新中心 编译

在我看来，食品法是一幅地图，指引我们识别误区、避免误区、并最终走向更好目的地。问题是：我们要去哪里？我们多快能到达那里？

Jacob Gersen

哈佛大学法学院Jacob Gersen教授在缅因州中部一古老农舍里长大，他戏称自己是乡巴佬。“那里有一个破旧的燃木炉灶，冬天农舍里也会积雪，并且看起来外围几英里的田地都要把农舍吞噬掉，”他回忆道。

现在的专家（在他学生眼中）看起来像数以百万的学科群，包括经济学、宪法理论、行政法、环境法等。Gersen教授将更多精力花费在详细研究一新的、备受推崇的前沿领域：食品法。他这样形容食品法领域：“在这一点上，如天空拥抱大地，亦如高高在上的法律理论碰触紧接地气的实际问题，”。“这是我唯一从事的工作，也是人们在鸡尾酒会上确实想谈论的话题。”

哈佛大学法学院也热衷于探讨这一话题。除了教授食品法课程外，Gersen教授在佩特里-富勒姆中心成立了食品法实验室，该中心是校园里热推食品法研究的几个机构之一。在临床教授Emily Broad Leib的指导下，Gersen说道，食品法及政策诊所已接手了“一些很好的项目，其中包括一篇关于食品保质期的重要报告，得到了广大媒体关注。”哈佛法学院同加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）共同主办了年度食品法会议。学生也通过食品法社团开展活动。“许多事情正在进行着，”Gersen说道，“但挑战与发展一直并存。”

像之前环境法与行政法一样，食品法最终将从新颖的课程转变为常态，Gersen认为这一趋势已成定局。“现在，我们吃什么是我们现有法律的一项功能，”他指出，“每一片食物都是法律作用的结果，法律规范着食物的生产、配送、销售及消费。”Gersen将同哈佛法学院分享其对迅速发展的食品法领域的观点。

食品法吸引你的是什么？

一个人的学术生涯经常关于成长，离家，最终回归，这也是我的学术生涯。我父母曾在20世纪60年代末住在曼哈顿区，父亲当时开出租车，显然生活并不是很好。后来他们离开曼哈顿去了缅因州，但最后又返回了这片土地。他们在朋友土地上露营，帮着建房子，并且留了下来。父母有个磨房将小麦磨成面粉。父亲养蜂，母亲在地下室有一个很大的织布机。

终于父亲有了工作，在书店卖书，这份工作他一直在做直到去年去世。从我出生起到现在，这看起来更像是回归：食物、水、书籍。这也是我学术生涯的一种方式。

你曾经帮忙磨面或养蜂吗？

这本应该是一个很不错的故事，但是那时我太小，无法养蜂，也不能操作磨粉机。我记得当时藏在地下室的织布机，但是代与代之间的很多设备我们并不懂得如何去操作。想法或价值观就存在于家庭的每个角落，并且像孩子一样，将以某种方式成为了我们的一部分。

食品法高于现有技术并且超乎寻常。这些特点带给了我们什么挑战或机遇呢？

很久以前，我就想写《日常生活法》这样一本书。我从来没写过，但是我认为《食品法》就是这样一本书。食品很平常，因而食品法就是一部很平常的法律，或就如布莱克斯通所提及的普通法系。

然而，不同于以往普通法，食品法综合了详尽的法令、规章、条例、普通法，甚至贸易协定。坐下来仅研读冰淇淋国家标准的制定就很艰辛。

这部法律的目标是普遍性，并且是每个人日常生活的一部分，但对普通人来说或多或少都很难读懂当中法治环境，这意味着什么？在某种程度上，这说明这部法律的内容和我们对其理解之间有缺口，且缺口更应比平时得到重视。

是的，这关乎食品安全或食品标识法律是什么，但同样重要的是人们对食品安全或食品标识法律的理解。

你是否对美国食品法正向改变的可能性持乐观态度？

我曾经说过我对此不悲观也不乐观，但是我错了。以前我对此抱悲观态度。假如问题是“杯子是半满还是半空？”我会回答道，“哇，这是个很丑且漏水的杯子。”

但是现在，我真的是个现实的人。相比十年前，如今有意义的改革更有可能性。较二十年前，十年前的改革也是一大进步。为什么呢？因为食品作为政治与社会议题的时代已经到来。民众要关心此事，名流需讨论此事，政客更从事于此。甚至法学教授都开始写食品安全论文。食品标识，转基因食品，有机食品，家养动物，补充品，贸易，肥胖，学校午餐，盐，糖，油腻：这些概念或这些问题都是我们日常生活的一部分，是大众文化和我们民众生活的一部分。

但是改革的可能性并不意味着改革不可避免或更有可能。将机会转变成现实需要来自不同行业、不同领域人们的努力。在哈佛大学法学院，我们也努力承担食品法研究工作。这就意味着，在某种程度上，我们在披露法律条例如何影响我们生产和消费的食物。并且关注法律的变化如何使食品体系变得更简便或更好。《从法院到餐桌》，这是我目前在写的一本书。知识在人们在意的时候才突显其重要，但是人们目前并不在意。

当中挑战是什么？

我们想从食品法或食品体系中想要得到什么？对此我们一直很困惑。可能有人会回答“透明”，但是想要“透明”是什么意思，是希望每一个同食物本身可能相关的特质全部呈现在包装上么？这是不可能的。我们需要选择出必须或可能披露的信息。这个选择在决定吃什么的时候就显得尤其重要了。并且这将成为商品间一大竞争因素。

食品法发展很快，是因为世界上不同国家不同部门都在同时研究食品问题。这使食品研究迅速火热，但也使得其研究变的困难。

改革，因其持续不断的进程，总是个挑战。解决旧问题的过程中会带来新问题。如，曾经很少有人在意牛肉是否是草饲的，鸡蛋是否产自家养鸡，或蔬菜是否是有机的。如今，几乎每个人都很在乎这些事。这意味着对食品相关概念的定义、认证、分级起了作用。同时，也表明许多术语缺乏法律定义，如“天然”、“家养”、“非转基因”需要法律定义。

现在所有的听起来都是那么难以处理，但食品行业在进步。食品行业中主要参与者已经转向无抗生素（或至少较少量抗生素）动物来积极配合消费者和政府。这一转型过程花费了很长时间，好在现在已经开始转型。

你是如何着手写《从法院到餐桌》这本书的呢？

这本书我一直想写，但是我花了好长时间才付诸实施。曾经好几年我都在从事一个叫“坏苹果与好鸡蛋”的项目。该项目部分内容将是《从法院到餐桌》这本书其中一章。“坏苹果与好鸡蛋”项目的研究内容是机构与协会如何识别和处罚恶行，及这些处罚措施如何影响善行的环境与激励。对联合会、学校、立法机构、公司、国会等来说，这都是个问题。这确实是个很普遍的问题，并且在我看来这一研究领域相当活跃。

这同样适用于食品安全与食品质量。提高食品安全度并不是很困难，但是大多时候食品安全技术会使食品味道变得很糟糕。食品味道与食品安全间的权衡是食品法与政策的一大问题，对此我们怎样看待、理解并管理呢？

从1935年起，谢科特家禽公司诉美国案一直是个臭名昭著的案例，该案件对《国家产业复兴法案》提出了挑战，法案规定产业遵守一系列行为规则，其中包括一项要求，我们可简称为“病鸡规则”，即：买方不能购买卖方单只鸡。买方需购买整批量鸡，其中会有健康鸡，也有病鸡。买者对此表示不满，卖者则欣欣然。这就是“坏苹果与好鸡蛋”问题。法律条例要求拿坏苹果去得到好鸡蛋。通过这样，法律对正确和错误做出选择。

一些人可能会说现今的食品法是过去几十年美国人卖出的“坏苹果”的综述。你怎么看待这么说法？

我并不同意这种说法。大多领域的法律，如刑法、侵权法、甚至行政法与宪法，在某种程度上都是对恶行的处罚。假如每个人都善行，那么我们律师就没有工作了。从这层意义看，食品法讲述的是恶行，是“坏苹果”。

但是一些恶行的发生是因为法律，而不是由于缺乏法律。厄普顿·辛克莱的《屠场》有很多章节，我最喜欢的一章是辛克莱对比了联邦对进入洲际贸易的肉类相对严格的监管，以弥补当地芝加哥人缺乏保护的漏洞，或比如，美国士兵。对辛克莱来说，这一比较在一定程度上阐述了制度腐败，但其同样反映了一基本事实，即社会上哪些人购买或消费哪种食品也是我们甄选的法律条例的一项职责，如补贴农作物，稳定工业，我们普遍认为安全的原料。在以往不同阶段我们对此做了或将来会做不同的选择，其他国家做出其他选择。

和我许多同事一样，我相信食品法不仅仅是对恶行的回应，而是一基本要素：它造就我们，它阐述我们的部分生活。同其他法律领域一样，食品法同样具有便利性。该法可增加我们吃到更好食物的便捷性或只是增加了困难度。假如快餐车必须满足相同的食品安全和准备要求，那么快餐车将不复存在。如果政府部门或其他可靠的第三方机构不明确“全天然”、“草饲”等术语含义，那么很难将更高质量的产品带入市场，因为消费者不会有效区分当中差别。

在我看来，食品法是一幅地图，指引我们识别误区、避免误区、并最终走向更好目的地。问题是：我们要去哪里？我们多快能到达那里？

Salad Days: Professor Jacob Gersen on the rise of food law

By MICHAEL ZUCKERMAN ’17, September 29, 2015

HLS Professor Jacob Gersen, faculty adviser to the Climenko Program

Harvard Law professor Jacob Gersen grew up in central Maine, in an old farmhouse that he wryly calls rustic. “It had an old wood-burning kitchen stove, it snowed inside during the winter, and it had what seemed like miles of fields to run in,” he recalls.

Now expert in what seems (to his students) like millions of subjects—including economics, constitutional theory, administrative law, environmental law, and Congress—Gersen spends a growing share of his time traversing a new beloved frontier: food law. “It is at that point where the sky meets the land, where high legal theory meets the thicket of on-the-ground facts,” he says of the field. “It’s also the only thing I have worked on that people at a cocktail party actually want to talk about.”

Much of Harvard Law School now seems hungry to talk about it, too. In addition to teaching the subject, Gersen founded and oversees the Food Law Lab at the Petrie-Flom Center, one of several places where food law is sizzling on campus. Under clinical professorEmily Broad Leib’s direction, Gersen notes, the Food Law & Policy Clinic has tucked into “a range of terrific projects, including a truly important report on food expiration dates that got a lot of media attention.” The school co-sponsors an annual food law conference with UCLA. Students put on events through the Food Law Society. “There is a lot happening,” Gersen says, “and the challenge is really to keep up with all of it.”

Gersen believes that momentum is here to stay—and that food law, like environmental law and administrative law before it, will eventually go from course-catalog novelty to staple. “Today, what we eat is a function of the law we have,” he notes. “Every piece of food is the result of the law that structures its production, distribution, sale, and consumption.” He shared with Harvard Law Today his thoughts on that burgeoning area of law.

What drew you to food law?

One’s academic career is often about growing up, leaving home, and eventually returning, and that is how it was for me. I was a macrobiotic baby. My parents were living in Manhattan at the end of the 1960s and my dad was driving a cab—not particularly well, apparently. They left the city for Maine and quite literally went back to the land. They camped on their friend’s property, helped build a house from the ground up, and stayed. They had a mill to grind their own flour from wheat. My father kept bees. My mom had a giant loom in the basement.

My father eventually got a job in a book store and was a bookseller until he died last year. That historical moment into which I was born was very much a back-to-basics time: food, water, books. And that is sort of my career.

Did you help grind the flour or keep the bees?

It would make for a good story, but alas I was too young for either the bees or working the mill. I remember the equipment lurking in the basement, but it was one of those inter-generational transfers that takes place without us really understanding how. Ideas or values are just in the family ether and somehow they become part of us as kids.

Food law is at once hyper-technical and hyper-ordinary. What challenges or opportunities does the tension between those qualities provide?

A long time ago I wanted to write a book called “The Law of Everyday Life.” I never wrote it, but I think of food law like that. Food is as ordinary as ordinary gets. Food law is the law of the ordinary, or as Blackstone might have put it, the law of the common.

And yet, unlike the old common law, food law is a blend of very elaborately reticulated statutes, regulations, ordinances, common law, and even trade agreements. Just sitting down to read the federal standard of identity for ice creamis a slog.

What does it mean when the object of law is ordinary and part of everyone’s life every day and yet the law surrounding it is more or less impossible for regular people to read? In part, it means that the gap between the content of the law and our understanding of the law is even more important than usual.

Yes, it matters what our food safety or labeling laws do, but as important is what people believe our food safety or food labeling laws do. 

Are you optimistic about the possibility of positive change in American food law?

In my view, food law is a map. It is a way to identify pitfalls, avoid them, and move toward a better destination. The question is: Where are we going, and how quickly can we get there?

Jacob Gersen

I used to say that I was neither a pessimist nor an optimist. But that was wrong. I was a pessimist. If the question was, “Is the glass half full or half empty?” I would just say, “Wow, that is one ugly, leaky glass.”

But today, I really am a realist. Meaningful reform is more likely today than it was ten years ago and it was more likely ten years ago than it was ten years before. Why? Mainly because, as a political and social issue, food has arrived. We all think about it. Celebrities talk about it. Politicians work on it. Even law professors are starting to write about it! Labeling, GMOs, organics, humane treatment of animals, supplements, trade, obesity, school lunch, salt, sugar, fat: these ideas—these problems—are part of our everyday existence. They are part of our popular culture and identity.

But a moment of possibility does not mean reform is inevitable or even likely. Converting an opportunity to a reality requires work—work by people in many different fields and walks of life. At HLS, we are trying to do our share of that work. That means, in part, laying bare how the background legal rules affect the food that we produce and consume. And focusing on how changes in the law could render the food system easier or better. That is the goal of my current book project, “From Court to Table.” Knowledge only matters if people care. But people do care right now.

What are some of the challenges?

We are often confused about what we want from our food laws and or food system. What does it mean to want “transparency”—to have every potentially relevant feature of a food put on the package? That’s just not possible. Choices have to be made about what information must, or may, be disclosed. It’s a choice about what is—or, more often, what ought to be—important when deciding what to eat. And that will be fought over.

Food law is moving quickly because so many issues are being contested simultaneously by different actors in different parts of the country and the world. That is what makes it exciting and that is what makes it hard.

Reform is also a challenge because it is an ongoing process. Solutions to old problems create new problems. For example, for a while very few people cared whether beef was grass fed or eggs were from humanely treated chickens or vegetables were organic. Today, almost everybody does. But that means that definitions, certification, and graduations, gradations matter. It means that terms that lack a legal definition, like “natural” or “humane” or “GMO Free” need a legal definition.

Now all that sounds pretty overwhelming, but industry is moving. Major players in the food industry have responded to consumer and government prodding by shifting to antibiotics-free (or, at least, -less) animals. That process took a long time to start, but it is underway now. 

How did you get started on “From Court to Table”?

It is the book I always wanted to write, but it took me a long time to realize it. I worked for a few years on a project called “Bad Apples and Good Eggs.” Part of that work will be a chapter in “From Court to Table.” The Bad-Apples-Good-Eggs research question was about how organizations and institutions identify and sanction the really awful actors in their midst, and how those strategies affect the incentives and environment for the all the good actors in the organization. It is an issue for unions, schools, legislatures, firms, constitutions—it is a very general problem and in my view a wonderfully rich area for research.

It also applies to food safety and food quality. It isn’t that hard to make food very safe, but often times those techniques make food taste terrible. How we think about and understand and manage the taste-safety tradeoff is one of the major issues for food law and policy.

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is an infamous case from 1935 that involved a challenge to the National Industrial Recovery Act, which more or less allowed industries to adopt a code of conduct that included a requirement known roughly as a “sick chicken rule”: buyers couldn’t pick individual chickens from the seller. They had to buy a whole crate of chickens, which often contained some healthy chickens and some sick chickens. Buyers hated this; sellers loved it. That is a Bad-Apples-Good-Eggs issue. The legal rule requires taking the bad apples to get the good eggs. In so doing, the law picks winners and losers.

Some might say food law today is a survey of the many bad apples the American people have been sold over the past decades. Do you see it that way?

I don’t view food law in that way. Most areas of the law are, in some sense, about responding to bad actors—criminal law, tort, even administrative and constitutional law. If everyone behaved as angels, well, we lawyers wouldn’t have jobs. In this sense, yes, food law is about evils, about bad apples.

But some of these evils are created by law rather than a lack of law. Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” has lots of great passages, but my favorite is a section in which Sinclair juxtaposes the fairly rigorous federal regulation of what meat could enter interstate commerce against the total lack of protection for local Chicagoans or, for example, American soldiers. For Sinclair, the comparison partly illustrated institutional corruption, but it also reflects the basic fact that which food is sold and consumed by which people in society is always a function of the legal rules we select—the crops we chose to subsidize, the industries we choose to stabilize, the ingredients we generally recognize as safe. We have made and will make different choices about these things at different moments in history; other countries make other choices.

I believe, as many of my colleagues do, that law is not just a response to bad actors. It is also constitutive: It makes us who we are; it says something about us. And food law—like other areas of the law—is facilitative as well. The law can make it easier or harder to eat better food. If food trucks must meet identical—as opposed to equivalent—food safety and preparation requirements, there will be no food trucks. If the meaning of a term like “all natural” or “grass-fed” isn’t specified by the government or a reliable third party, it will be harder to bring higher quality products to market because consumers will not be able to effectively differentiate.

In my view, food law is a map. It is a way to identify pitfalls, avoid them, and move toward a better destination. The question is: Where are we going, and how quickly can we get there?

 链接：http://today.law.harvard.edu/salad-days-professor-jacob-gersen-on-the-rise-of-food-law/