我國食品認證與驗證制度架構與法律關係之探討

Discussion on the Relationship between the Framework and Legal Relationship of the Food Certification and Verification System in Taiwan

卓均彥(Jun-Yan Cho)

指導教授 ： 李建良

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201802123

摘要

在食安風暴頻傳的今日，人們逐漸對於現行的食品安全把關機制失去既有的信心，當務之急就是對於既有的食品檢驗體系進行檢視以及修補不足之處，是故目前的三級品管制度遂應運而生，其第一級品管係交給業者本身對於自身食品的自主檢驗，而第二級品管則是將系爭食品交付公正第三人進行認證及驗證的第三方監督機制，最後，第三級品管是由政府對於市面上之食品進行隨機抽驗與稽查，欲藉此交織出綿密無漏洞的食品安全防護體系。

本文的重心放在上述第二級品管之上，相較於第三級品管的事後抽驗以及完全交給業者以其榮譽心進行自我管制的第一級品管，第二級品管毫無疑問的是最有防弊效果的檢驗手段，但須先予釐清的是，認證與驗證的用語，雖然坊間常以認驗證含糊將其視為一個整體，但實際上認證與驗證並不相同，用語必須清楚地加以分辨，另外，目前我國食品安全衛生管理法之認證與驗證體系，與上開三級品管體系中的「第三方認證與驗證」並不完全相同，有其獨特之處，更進一步者，食品安全衛生管理法第8條跟第37條之認證與驗證體系並不相同，其兩者與傳統上三級品管之「商業性認證與驗證」在政府介入程度上有所不同，於食品安全衛生管理法第8條之認證驗證，業者無拒絕參加之權利，屬強制性規範，且和傳統性商業認證驗證不同者，乃此認證與驗證程序中，行政機關有著相當大的干預及介入權限，和二級品管原先強調的政府與業者外由「第三方公證人」所進行有著微妙的差異，再者，在認證及驗證的標的上，第8條針對的是食品生產系統，而第37條是針對食品本身而為之，本文將對於食品安全衛生管理法第8條、第37條的認證與驗證，以及傳統商業性認證與驗證三者進行區分介紹，以期對於整體的制度有初步完整之了解。

另外從行政法總論之角度切入，上開各個認證與驗證制度若遇有較好的執行信度與效度，則各個行為的性質釐清之重要性即可見一般，本文認為，原則上認證行為因公權力介入較深，故無論是上述三者的何者，若為政府機關為之者，應可訂為行政程序法第92條之行政處分，若為行政機關所委託之他機構為之者，則屬同法第16條之委託行使公權力，至於驗證部分，食品安全衛生管理法第8條之驗證因仍有公權力介入空間，故為委託行使公權力，同法第37條部分目前公部門所找的二級品管的第三方驗證機構，係在其與政府依政府採購法所訂的契約中規定其資格要件，其所對食品業者作成的檢驗在性質上應屬行政契約之訂立，最後，傳統商業性認證部分，因無公權力介入的影子，屬純粹之私經濟上之行為，應較無爭議。

另外，因地方政府在食品安全問題爆發時，往往面臨立即性的非難，是故其為了避免有責無權的情況發生，遂急於成立自己的食品認證及驗證機構，並結合在地企業提供金錢支助，然而在法制層面上，地方政府目前依食品安全衛生管理法能做的往往只有第三級品管的稽查，地方政府的構想與實際法制上的落差可謂甚鉅，之後實務上中央與地方政府就食品安全把關上的分工發展，也就相當值得關注。最後，透過與歐盟法之比較可知，我國在食品認證與驗證制度上多仰賴行政機關之法規命令與行政規則進行執行上的細部規定，在法律層級的規範上，由食品安全衛生管理法獨撐大局的樣態與歐盟完整的法規範形成了顯著對比，又歐盟法規體系對於相關名詞規範的清楚規定，相當值得我國法效法。

關鍵字

食品安全 ； 認證 ； 驗證 ； 認證單位 ； 驗證單位

並列摘要

Frequent storms in food safety are increasing, people gradually lose confidence in the existing food safety control system, it is imperative for the system to review its fault and repair it. So the food three quality control system naturally comes to its birth. Its first-class control system is for the industry itself to self-test their own food productions, while the second-class control system is a third-party monitoring mechanism delivering food authentication and verification, and the third-class control system is conducted by the government for random checking of the food on the market. It is intended to entangle a food safety protection system with no loopholes.

The focus of this article is on the above-mentioned second-class control system. Compared with the third-level control system which is only functional when the problem occurs, and the first-level control system which is fully relied on the industry for its own self-regulation, the second-level control system is no doubt the most effect means. But first, we must be clear of the correct use of the nouns of food certification and verification, although people often vague them and take them as a whole, but in fact verification and certification is never the same, the terms must be clearly identified. In addition, the current certification and verification system for the law in our country is not exactly the same as the“ third-party certification and verification” of the food three quality control system. In addition, the certification and verification systems of Articles 8 and 37 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation are not the same. In the certification and verification of Article 8 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, the industry has no right to refuse to participate, is a mandatory standard, furthermore the administrative agencies in our country have considerable intervention and intervening power. It is quite different from the traditional commercial certification verification.

From the angle of administrative law, if the system above wants to be well performed, and we must define every relating noun clearly. We believe that because of the deep intervention from the government, no matter which of the three mentioned certifications above, it is either the act of government under Article 92 of the Administrative Procedure Act or it is commissioned to exercise public power under Article 16 of the same law. As for the verification part, the verification of Article 8 of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation is entrusted to be the exercise of public power because the public power is still involved in the space. And for the Article 37 of Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, the third-party verification agency currently sought by the government stipulates its qualification requirements in its contract with the government under the Government Procurement Act, and the relation between food industry and the third-party verification agency should be an administrative contract. Finally, as for the traditional commercial certification part, because it is not public power related, is a purely private economic behavior and should be less controversial.

In addition, due to when food safety issues happen, local government often faces immediate public blame. Therefore, in order to avoid culpability, they are eager to set up their own food certification and verification agencies, and try to ask local companies for money support. However, by the existing legal system , local governments can only rely on the third-class control system to make control. The gap between the concept of local government had thought and the actual legal system situation can be very large. Thus, the role of central government plays in food safety with the local government on food safety is also worthy of our attention. Finally, comparing to European Union law, we know that our food certification and verification system mostly relies on the detailed regulations on the implementation of administrative orders and administrative rules of the executive authorities. At the legal level, Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation supports the overall situation. The state is in contrast with the EU's complete legal norms, and the EU's legal system clearly stipulates relevant noun specifications, which is also worthy of emulation of us.

並列關鍵字

Food safety ； Certification ； Verification ； Certification Agency ； Verification Agency

參考文獻

一、中文部分

Matthias Knauff（著），李建良（譯）（2017）。《人民與國家關係之變遷》，一版台北：元照。

工商時報（2017）。《台南市成立食品安全自主管理聯盟協會》。載於：HTTPS://M.CTEE.COM.TW/LIVENEWS/CH/20170829003393-260405。

中時電子報（2014）。《GMP出包經濟部：無法國賠》。載於：https://tw.news.yahoo.com/gmp%E5%87%BA%E5%8C%85-%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E9%83%A8-%E7%84%A1%E6%B3%95%E5%9C%8B%E8%B3%A0-215026737.html。

中時電子報（2015）。《賣場超商食品，須自主檢驗》。載於：http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20151219000337-260114。