The latest initiative to severely punish crimes that threaten food safety is a belated but welcome response to growing public concern over our food resources.

The drain on the sector's credibility will otherwise be irreparable.

Given the weakening sense of security at Chinese meals, recent debate over the removal of the death sentence for crimes of an "economic nature" already dealt a heavy blow to public confidence in authorities' resolve and ability to make a difference in the food industry.

Despite their repeated vows and pledges to eliminate toxic melamine from our dairy supply, authorities still promise leniency for those who surrender melamine stocks before a new deadline. There are speculations that the authorities seem to care more about the health of the domestic dairy industry than that of the public. Once the capital punishment is removed for such crimes, offenders will surely become more reckless in endangering our food supply. There are also those who think they will be able to buy reprieves or even exemptions from a sentence for their crimes.

The latest joint circular by the Supreme Court, Supreme Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice can help offset such disappointment because it more or less caters to the time-tested, popular notion that severe action is the only cure for a messy situation.

First, the circular confirms that the death sentence for crimes endangering food safety is valid. Other than capital punishment, it makes an inspiring point that may serve to dampen the hopes of perpetrators anticipating any easy escape for their acts - they should be thoroughly deprived of any capital and illicit gains for committing a new offense.

The circular also promises strict control over the application of reprieves and sentence exemptions. The stipulation that those suspected of crimes endangering food safety be generally excluded from the application of reprieves and sentence exemptions is also welcomed. But the scope left for exceptions is worrying. To ensure that it is not abused, there should be a full explanation of all exceptions approved.

The spotlight on system insiders who offer umbrella protection for perpetrators is also good. These insiders are the root cause of the problems in dealing with our food safety problems. They deserve punishments equal, if not harsher, to those for violators who directly sabotage our food resources.

But having gone through so many high-sounding but rather ineffective campaigns regarding food safety, we know how far we are from the objective.

Translating slogans that are pleasing to the ear into action and finally into tangible benefits takes more than we would like to believe.

The special circumstances have always called for more than just simple law enforcement.