3斤肉上桌只剩1斤多店家称是正常现象******
□ 本报记者 张守坤
“我们点了3斤肉，结果菜端上桌之后重量只有1斤多。从店员到厨师再到老板都说菜品缩水是正常现象。”
在天津工作的张文(化名)不久前和几位朋友一起来到一家铁锅炖吃饭。店内富有东北特色的装修和座无虚席的大厅让张文对菜品充满期待，但等到菜上了桌，张文感觉到不对。
张文告诉《法治日报》记者，他们点的3斤肉包括1斤鸡肉、2斤鹅肉，服务员把菜倒进锅里后，分量一眼看上去就不对，而且只能看到鸡头和鸡爪。“我们刚开始以为是饭店少上了鹅肉，便叫来服务员询问情况。服务员表示菜品已经上全了，还找来了厨师，厨师说这些肉都是他刚刚炒过的，鹅肉鸡肉都在不会有错。”
最后，饭店老板也来了，坚持说菜品没有任何问题：“我们的肉分量都是足的，只是生肉变成熟肉的过程中会缩水，1斤生肉制成菜品可能在6两左右，这都很正常，不信的话可以去后厨看。”但当张文真准备去看时，老板却又借故离开，摆摆手说“店里生意忙，不要再闹了”，还说多送他们一份花卷和贴饼。
“这样看来，3斤肉熟了后可能只剩一半，缩水多少全由老板说了算，根本不公平。”张文说，除了肉量少，肉的“内容”也让他们感到不满。“锅里鸡脖鸡头鸡屁股都有，还有全是白膘的带皮鹅肉，真正能吃的没多少。”
缺斤短两、菜品缩水、以次充好、掺杂水分……张文就餐时遇到的糟心情况并非个例。北京市民孙洋(化名)不久前来到一家蒸汽石锅鱼店就餐，在选鱼时，老板不仅将桶和里面的水一起称重，结账时本来3斤多的鱼，却按4斤计算收费。
近日，海南省三亚市综合行政执法局发布多批旅游市场整治典型案例，就有商家擅自偷换消费者提供用于海鲜加工的活鱼、在销售皮皮虾的过程中存在掺杂水分、缺斤短两等情况。
中国法学会消费者权益保护法研究会副秘书长陈音江向记者介绍，类似这种“缩水”的缺斤短两行为，是餐饮界不够诚信守法商家的借口。不只是肉，很多食材煮熟后都会严重缩水，餐饮机构作为专业一方，生熟关系应当提前进行说明，或者在菜单上标明，顾客要求对菜品进行查看，称量时也应配合，充分保障消费者的知情权和选择权。
陈音江举例说，假如消费者要了一份炒鸡，结果全是或者大部分是鸡头鸡脚这样的边角料，明显不符合一般人的消费习惯，属于以次充好，涉嫌侵犯消费者的知情权和公平交易权。
中国政法大学副教授、中国法学会商法学研究会理事兼副秘书长朱晓娟认为，就餐中的消费者权益保障问题是关系民生的重大问题，各方应共同打造和维护安全、合理、公平的就餐质量、环境与秩序。
朱晓娟建议，商家要树立长线思维，诚实守信，应该依照餐饮行业惯例对就餐食材的计量方式等进行明示告知。对于行业协会而言，应该针对餐饮消费中反映的普遍问题进行针对性行业指引，出台自律管理细则，引导餐饮行业建立并执行合理的行业惯例，要求餐饮企业对事关消费者合法权益的相关事项进行必要的解释与说明，做到让消费者明明白白消费，充分发挥行业协会的引领作用。
北京瀛和(三亚)律师事务所执行主任张华认为，监管部门除了关注餐饮经营企业的许可、卫生条件等硬件外，对于餐饮消费中损害消费者权益的问题应进行主动监管，采取抽查、约谈等方式进行事前事中的防范与规制，对于有关投诉，要及时回应与处置。
在江苏省法学会经济法研究会理事长、江苏大学法学院副教授杜乐其看来，有关部门应加大信息化管理力度，比如某餐厅出现欺诈行为，就要第一时间将此餐厅的信用记录发布在官方网站或者公众号。同时监管部门可以加强对投诉的途径和方法的宣传力度，提高消费者的维权意识和能力。
“还应规范餐厅菜单和发票的设计，实现信息对称。菜单、发票的设计要规范、全面，比如注明菜肴的名称、分量、价格以及原料的规格；在客人结账时提供规范的发票，发票上有菜肴名称、单位、单价以及总价，这样如果消费者遭遇欺诈，发票就会成为一个有力的证据。只有充分实现消费者与经营者的信息对称，才能最大限度地防止消费者被欺诈。”杜乐其说。
中新网评：处理核污水绝不是日本自家私事******
中新网北京1月19日电(蒋鲤)日本政府近日称，将于2023年春夏期间开始向海洋排放经过处理的福岛第一核电站核污水。日本罔顾国内民众及周边国家的屡屡反对，企图将核污水“一倒了之”，把一件关乎全球海洋生态环境和公众健康的事当成了自家私事。
资料图：日本福岛第一核电站。2011年，福岛核电站事故发生后，大量放射性物质泄漏到大气层和太平洋，对周围环境造成了难以逆转的伤害，数十万人被迫撤离该地区。时至今日，作为日本邻国之一的韩国仍未解除福岛海鲜禁令。
日本以核污水存储能力即将达到上限为由，在2021年4月13日，正式决定将福岛第一核电站核污水排入太平洋。过去一年多，日本政府和东京电力公司一直在持续推进核污水排海计划。
日本政府辩称，这些核污水经多核素处理系统(ALPS)处理后很安全，甚至“可以喝”，这样的表态无疑在愚弄大众。
事实上，经过处理的核污水仍含有多种放射性物质，核污水一旦排放入海就无法回收，长期来看，将会给海洋生态带来难以估量的潜在威胁，最终危害人类健康。
因此，核污水排海计划推出后，遭到日本民众强烈反对。日本《朝日新闻》2022年3月公布的问卷调查显示，福岛县、宫城县和岩手县受访的42个市町村长中，约六成反对东京电力公司福岛第一核电站核污水排放入海。日本全国渔业协会联合会也多次申明立场，反对该计划。
日本政府认为，核污水排海是最便宜、最省事的解决方案，但此举却将周边国家乃至全世界置于核污染风险中。太平洋非日本一家之海，核污水会随着洋流流动，其影响势必会跨越国界，危害周边国家乃至整个国际社会的公共福祉和利益。
《韩国经济新闻》发文称，相关研究认为，福岛核污水如果排放入海，约7个月后将到达济州等韩国海域，该国水产业和旅游业将遭受相当大的损失。
德国南极海洋机构也曾发出警告，若日本将所有核污水排入海中，不到半年，整个太平洋都将面临高度辐射威胁，包括远在大洋另一端的美国。太平洋地区人民更是对日本该计划持反对意见。
日本作为《联合国海洋法公约》缔约国，有义务保护海洋环境。然而，在核污水排海方案的正当性、核污水数据的可靠性、净化装置的有效性、环境影响的不确定性等问题上，日本未能作出科学、可信的说明。
国际原子能机构技术工作组虽已三次赴日实地考察评估，但尚未就日排海方案的安全性给出结论，并且对日本提出诸多澄清要求和整改意见。在此情况下，日本仍执意推进核污水排海工程建设，这是极不负责任的行为。
太平洋不是日本的下水道，日本必须正视各方合理关切，在与周边国家等相关利益方和国际原子能机构充分协商后，制定合理的核污水处理方案。日本也要着眼长远，若只顾眼前，执意将核污水排放入海，不仅其自身，周边国家乃至全世界都将为之买单，其后果必将会危害数代人。
Fukushima water disposal by no means Japan’s own business
By John Lee
(ECNS) -- Japan has announced it will release treated wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean this year.
Although Fukushima wastewater disposal affects global marine ecological environment protection and public health, Japan has turned a deaf ear to domestic and international opposition to dumping the contaminated water into the sea, treating the "global" matter as its own business.
The Fukushima accident in 2011 had sent large quantities of radiation into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean, causing irreversible damage to the surrounding environment, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced to evacuate the area. South Korea still maintains its import ban on Japanese seafood from areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
On April 13, 2021, Japan announced it had decided to discharge contaminated radioactive wastewater in Fukushima Prefecture into the sea due to dwindling storage space, with the Japanese government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. promoting the release plan over the past year.
The Japanese government argues that the water treated by an advanced liquid processing system, or ALPS, is safe and drinkable, which is undoubtedly fooling the public.
In fact, the treated wastewater still includes a variety of radioactive substances and can’t be recycled once discharged into the sea, which will pose a great threat to marine ecology and ultimately endanger human health in the long run.
Therefore, the discharge plan has been strongly opposed in Japan. According to a questionnaire conducted by The Asahi Shimbun, nearly 60 percent of mayors of 42 municipalities in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures oppose the discharge plan. The National Fisheries Cooperative Federation of Japan has also repeatedly stated its opposition in public.
The Japanese government believes that dumping Fukushima wastewater into the sea is the cheapest and most convenient solution, but neighboring countries and even the whole world will be at risk of nuclear pollution.
The Pacific Ocean doesn’t belong to Japan and the wastewater flow along oceanic currents will surely break boundaries and endanger public welfare and the interests of neighboring countries and even the international community.
The Korea Economic Daily reported that related research concluded that if contaminated water from Fukushima is released into the ocean, it would only take seven months for the contaminated water to reach the shores of Jeju Island, with the country's aquaculture and tourism suffering considerable losses.
According to the calculation of a German marine scientific research institute, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within half a year from the date of discharge, and the U.S. and Canada will be affected by nuclear pollution. People in the Pacific region also oppose the discharge plan.
As a participant of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation of protecting the marine environment.
However, it hasn’t offered a full and convincing explanation on issues like the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of data on the nuclear-contaminated water, the efficacy of the treatment system or the uncertainty of environmental impact.
Though the IAEA has yet to complete a comprehensive review after three investigations in Japan, the Japanese side has been pushing through the approval process for its discharge plan and even started building facilities for the discharge. It is rather irresponsible for Japan to act against public opinion at home and concerns abroad.
The Pacific Ocean is not a private Japanese sewer. The country must seriously heed the voices of the international community and make a reasonable plan for the Fukushima wastewater disposal after full consultation with stakeholders and international agencies.
If it only seeks instant interest and insists on discharging the contaminated water into the sea, not only itself, but also its neighboring countries and the entire world will pay for the decision and several generations will be forced to bear the consequence.
| 彩神彩票app地图 |
