식품 관련 법체계 개편을 위한 기초연구

전체 글

(1)C2008-37｜2008.11.. 발간등록번호 11-1541000-000076-01. 식품 관련 법체계 개편을 위한 기초연구. 이 계 임 한 재 환 손 은 영. 연. 제 백 위 봉 안. 한양대. 철 태 태 영 수. 웅 웅 석 준 길. 구. 위. 원. 전 문 연 구 원 연. 구. 원 교수. 브리티시콜럼비아대학교 농 촌 진 흥 청 한 양 대 학 교 한 양 대 학 교.

(2) 연구 담당 이계임 한재환 손은영 제철웅 위태석 백태웅. 연구위원 전문연구원 연구원 한양대 교수 농진청 박사 브리티시콜럼비아대 교수. 연구 총괄, 1~8장 집필 2장 집필 자료 수집 및 분석 5~7장 집필 5장 집필 5장 집필.

(3) i. 머 리 말. 식품은 헌법이 설정한 최고의 가치인 국민의 생명과 건강에 직결되는 대표 적인 요소로서 국가로부터 법률적으로 보호되어야 할 대상이다. 따라서 소비자 에게 안전하고 품질 좋은 식품을 안정적으로 공급하기 위한 소비자 보호기능 확립과 식품공급체계 구축을 위해서는 식품 관련 법체계의 합리적인 운영이 뒷받침되어야 한다. 반면 현행 식품과 관련된 법령은 다수의 부처에서 관련 법률에 의한 다원적 인 관리체제를 취하고 있어 규제의 분산과 중복 사례가 발생하고, 전문성･통일 성･책임성･신속성이 결여되어 리스크 발생 시 신속한 대처가 용이하지 않다. 또한 관리의 사각지대가 발생하고 책임소재가 불분명하며, 상호 정보 공유 미 흡으로 안전관리 기능이 취약한 문제점을 나타내고 있다. 이 연구는 우리나라 식품 관련 법에 대한 법률적 검토, 수요자 조사, 주요국 의 식품법 사례 등을 검토하여 식품 관련 법률체계의 효율적인 운영을 위한 기 초자료를 제시하는 것을 목적으로 추진되었다. 이 연구의 결과가 식품 관련 정 보를 소비자에게 효율적으로 전달하고 소비자 선호변화에 대응한 식품 산업 기반 조성을 제도적으로 뒷받침하는 법률체계 개선 방안을 마련하는데 기초자 료로 활용되기를 기대한다. 연구에 참여해주신 외부 전문가 여러분과 설문에 응해주신 업체, 소비자단체 담당자께 감사드린다.. 2008. 11. 한국농촌경제연구원장 오 세 익.

(4) iii. 요. 약. 소비자에게 안전하고 품질 좋은 식품을 안정적으로 공급하기 위해 식품 관 련 법체계의 합리적인 운영이 뒷받침 되어야 한다. 이 연구는 국내 식품 관련 법에 대한 법률적 검토와 수요자 조사를 통한 실행평가, 주요국의 식품법 사례 검토를 통해 식품 관련 법률체계의 효율적인 운영을 위한 식품법 체계 개선방 향을 제시하는데 목적이 있다. 현재 식품과 관련된 법령은 약 200건으로 식품류별로 구분되어 있으며, 그 밖에 간접적으로 관련되는 다수법이 존재한다. 식품 관련 법률을 내용면에서 구분하면 안전, 품질, 산업진흥으로 나눌 수 있다. 식품안전과 관련하여 상위법 은 “식품안전기본법”이며, 농림수산식품부와 보건복지가족부 소관법률이 하위 법률로 위치하고 있다. 식품 품질 관련 법률체계는 식품별로 분산, 운영되고 있 으며, 관련 법들을 포괄하는 기본법이 없는 것이 특징이다. 식품산업관련법은 “농업･농촌 및 식품산업 기본법”을 근간으로 축산물, 수산물, 임산물, 가공식품 및 음식으로 구분되어 있다. 국내 식품 관련 법률체계는 5가지로 평가 될 수 있다. 첫째, 현행 식품과 관 련된 기본법 중에는 전체식품을 망라하는 기본법이 없고, 소관부처별로 기본법 이 분산되어 있다. 이는 관련 정의가 체계적으로 구성되지 못하게 한다. 둘째, 식품 관련 법률의 목적이 위생, 안전성, 품질표시, 산업진흥 중 2~4개의 목적과 관련됨에 따라 법률의 성격이 명확히 구분되지 않고 관련 내용이 중복되는 경 우가 발생하고 있다. 셋째, 식품의 안전관리가 부처별로 분담됨에 따라 안전 관 리와 관련한 법률들이 소관 부처별로 분산･운영되고 있다. 중앙부처의 식품위 험 정보 수집･위험평가기능･위험관리의 효율화를 위한 역할이 소홀해지며, 지 자체에서도 업무 수행에 혼란을 겪을 수 있다. 넷째, 식품의 품질표시 관련 법 률은 품목별로 개별 법률에 포함되어 분산･규정 되어 있으며, 상위법으로 규율 되지 않는 특징이 있다. 식품위생법도 기준･규격, 표시 등과 관련된 항목을 포.

(5) iv 함하고 있다. 다섯째, 식품산업의 진흥을 위해 제정된 법률에서 ‘식품산업’에 대한 범위가 불명확하며, 진흥법제의 요소인 기금이나 단체설립에 관한 규정이 포함되어 있지 않다. 식품업체와 소비자단체를 대상으로 식품 관련법의 운용과 개편방향에 대한 의견을 조사한 결과 관련 법률이 너무 많은 것(식품제조･가공업과 식품접객업) 과 관련법과 관리기관의 분산(전통식품･농업경영체와 소비자단체)을 식품 관 련 법률체계의 가장 큰 문제점으로 지적하였다. ‘기본법’제정에 대해서는 업체 와 소비자단체가 모두 긍정적으로 보고 있으며 이의 소관부처로 가공업체에서 는 농림수산식품부가 적합하다는 의견이 우세하였다. 법의 통합에 대해서 업체 와 소비자 모두 공감하였으며 업체에서는 안전과 진흥을 통합하는 것에, 소비 자단체는 안전과 진흥은 분리되어야 한다는 입장을 보였다. ‘원산지 표시’, ‘HACCP', ‘유기식품인증’, ‘식품이력제’ 등이 여러 법률에 근거하여 운영되는 데 대해서는 모두가 부적합하다고 생각하고 있었다. 법이 너무 자주 바뀐다는 평가와 법 조항을 이해하기 어렵다는 의견이 제시되었다. 유럽연합에서는 “식품기본법(178/2002/EC)”이 상위법 위치에 있으며, 그 아 래 지침이나 명령 형태의 식품 관련 법률이 존재한다. “식품기본법”의 기본 목 표는 ‘농장에서 식탁까지’ 식품의 안전 관리이며, 사료에 대해서도 규율하고 있 다. 영국의 식품법은 “식품안전법”을 기본법으로 하여, 식품성분･표시･위생･신 종식품･위해물질 등을 모두 시행규칙으로 처리하고 있다. 영국 식품법에서는 식품의 위험관리와 위험평가가 구분되어 있고 식품안보를 중요한 농업정책으 로 제시하고 있다. 독일 식품법의 특징은 식품농림소비자보호부(BMELV)에서 위생･안전을 모두 책임지고 식품법을 하나의 법으로 통합하여 세부사항을 규칙 (시행령)으로 처리하고 있다는 점이다. 아울러 독립성과 중립성을 가진 연방위 험평가연구소(BfR)가 위험평가 업무를 수행하고 있다. 캐나다는 연방차원의 식품검사청(CFIA)과 보건부가 식품안전에 관해 일차적인 책임을 지고 있다. 캐나다 식품법은 “식품의약품법”에 근거를 두고 그 외의 법은 “식품의약품법” 을 강화하고 보충하는 역할을 하고 있어 일관성이 있다는 점이 특징이다. 일본 에서는 “식품안전기본법”과 “식육기본법”이 내각부 소관이며, 농림수산성과.

(6) v 후생노동성에서 대부분 법을 관장하고 있다. 일본의 식품법은 대체로 품목별로 통합되어 있으며, 안전성에 대해 농림수산성은 산업진흥이라는 측면에서 후생 노동성은 국민의 건강보호라는 관점에서 접근하는 등 식품 관련 부처 간 역할 분담이 명확하다는 점이 특징이다. 식품 관련 법률은 국제적 기준과 소비자 선호에 부합되어야 하며, 식품정책 의 효율적 운영과 식품산업 정책의 활성화를 뒷받침해야 한다. 식품 관련 법률 체계의 중장기 개편안은 ‘식품 위생･안전･품질에 관한 법률 통합안’이다. 식품 의 위생･안전･품질이 상호 분리되기 어려운 식품의 품질요소라는 점을 감안하 여 “식품안전기본법”과 식품 품질 관련 법률들을 포괄하는 형태의 기본법을 구 성하였으며, 식품법과 식품산업진흥법을 구분한다. EU, 영국, 독일의 식품법이 대표적 사례로 분산체계에서 발생할 수 있는 문제점이 해결될 수 있으나, 기존 관련 법체계의 대폭적인 조정이 필요하고 소관부처의 반발이 예상된다. 단기 개편안은 ‘식품품질관련 법률 통합안’으로 농산물, 수산물, 축산물 및 그 가공 품인 식품의 품질 표시에 공통으로 적용될 수 있는 요소를 추출하여 “식품품질 표시법(가칭)”을 제정하는 안이다. 이 안은 캐나다와 일본 사례와 유사하며 부 처 간 역할분담 및 상호 견제에 의한 균형을 이룰 수 있는 장점이 있다. 반면 여전히 법률적 중복과 모순 현상이 발생할 가능성이 상존한다는 한계가 있다. “식품품질표시법(가칭)”의 제정과 관련 법률 간의 조정과정에는 상당한 시간이 지체될 것이므로 우선적으로는 현재 법률체계 하에서 법률 조항의 조정이 추 진되어야 할 것으로 보인다. 가공식품의 품질 및 식품산업 진흥에 관련된 항목 이 “식품산업진흥법”에 포함되어 있으므로, “식품위생법”에서 품질표시, 검사, 식품단체 및 기금 관련 조항을 “식품산업진흥법”으로 이관하는 형태의 조정이 추진되어야 할 것이다. 식품법 운영의 합리적 개선을 위해서는 법 개정을 주기 적으로 실시하여 법 개정에 따른 불필요한 비용발생을 최소화 하고 법 개정의 시행자 및 수요자가 개정 시기를 예측하여 대비하도록 해야 한다. 또한 법에 대한 수요자의 이해를 위해 해설서와 Q&A집 발행, 지속적인 홍보와 교육이 필 요하다..

(7) vii ABSTRACT. A Study on Reorganization of Food-Related Law Structure. Food-related domestic laws are administered in several government departments. This results in a lack of specialty, unity, and responsibility which could be accomplished in a single government department in implementing food-related laws. The purpose of this study is to find an improvement for food law structure for efficiently administering food law by examining the food law structures of several foreign countries and carrying out consumer and food company surveys. There are four main problems in domestic food law structure. First, various government departments have their own food-related laws and are in charge of many services, causing unnecessary cost and resource spending by bringing about redundancy and distribution of regulation. Second, various food operating systems make food agencies inefficient and delay coping with the food safety incidents. Third, food labeling-related law is separately operated in commodity units and the scope of target commodity is not clearly defined, thus making unclear the locus of responsible agency when coming about food accidents. Lastly, regulation of food law of each department is an obstacle to constructing mutual sharing among different agencies. A domestic food-related law structure is evaluated in five aspects. First, currently, there is no food fundamental law covering all foods, and it is scattered according to the competent authorities. Second, since objectives of most food-related laws are associated with hygiene, safety, quality show and industry promotion, their roles are not clearly defined and related contents tend to be repeated. Third, food laws related to safety management are independently worked in several departments. Fourth, laws related to food labeling are included in individual law in commodity units, and those are not regulated in the upper law. Fifth, a range of food industry is ambiguous in law for promoting food industry. As a main problem of domestic food law structure, food manufacturers, processors, and food hospitality industries indicate that there are too many related laws, whereas traditional food industries, agricultural management groups, and consumer groups point out that food-related laws and departments.

(8) viii are dispersed. Food industries and consumer groups all agree with the unification of food-related laws. A medium-and long-term plan for a food-related law structure is to enact food fundamental law including both the existing ‘food safety fundamental law’ and ‘agriculture, rural communities and food industry fundamental law’, and to comprehend laws related to food qualities. An advantage of this plan is to solve many problems that the dispersed food law system could bring about by unifying food-related laws into one law. However, a disadvantage of the plan is an extensive adjustment of food law structure and an opposition of the existing institutions. A short-term plan is to extract common factors applicable to food quality labeling of agricultural, marine, livestock products and their processed products and enact a unified law about food qualities. This plan provides a benefit to maintain a balance among institutions by role assignment and mutual control, whereas legal overlapping and contradiction may occur due to a share of work responsibility. For a rational improvement of food law operation law revision should be regularly enforced to minimize unnecessary cost and make law demander, such as consumers and food companies, cope with new law environment. In addition, the publication of law handbook or question and answer(Q&A) need to be considered for relevant understanding and utilization of law demands.. Researchers: Lee, Kyei-Im, Han, Jae-Hwan, Son, Eun-Young Research Period: 2008.6~11 E-mail address: lkilki@krei.re.kr.

(9) ix. 차. 례. 제1장 서론 1. 연구의 필요성과 목적 ················································································· 1 2. 선행연구 검토 ······························································································ 2 3. 연구의 내용 ·································································································· 5 4. 연구 범위와 방법 ························································································· 6 제2장 식품 관련 법령 현황과 문제점 1. 식품 관련 법령구조의 현황 ········································································ 9 2. 식품 관련 법체계와 주요 식품 관련법 내용 ·········································· 14 3. 식품 관련 법체계의 문제점 ······································································ 19 제3장 식품 관련 법률의 체계 및 규정 평가 1. 식품 관련 법률체계 평가 ········································································· 20 2. 식품 관련 법 규정의 모순･불일치 ·························································· 29 제4장 수요자의 식품 관련 법 실행 평가 1. 조사의 개요 ································································································ 49 2. 식품 관련 법률체계 평가 ········································································· 50 3. 식품 제도 관련 규정 ················································································· 54 4. 식품법 적용 관련 평가 ············································································· 58 제5장 외국의 식품 관련 법체계 현황과 시사점 1. EU ··············································································································· 61 2. 영국 ············································································································· 66.

(10) x 3. 독일 ············································································································· 71 4. 캐나다 ········································································································· 78 5. 일본 ············································································································· 85 제6장 식품 관련 법률체계 개편방안 1. 법률체계 개편의 기본방향 ······································································ 101 2. 식품 관련 법률체계 개편안 검토 ·························································· 103 3. 식품법 운영의 합리적 개선 ···································································· 120 제7장 식품 관련 통합법률(안) 개요 1. 식품기본법(가칭)의 개요 ········································································· 125 2. 식품품질표시법(가칭)의 개요 ································································· 128 제8장 요약 및 결론. 부록 1. 유럽연합 기본명령 178/2002 ····························································· 140 2. 영국 식품안전법 및 식품기준법 ······················································· 178 3. 독일의 식품, 생활필수품 및 사료법(LFGB) ··································· 236 4. 일본의 식품 관련법 ············································································ 263 5. 국내 식품 관련 법률 ·········································································· 288 참고문헌 ············································································································· 371.

(11) xi. 표 차 례. 제2장 표 2-1. 식품과 간접 관련 법률 현황 ······················································· 13 제3장 표 3-1. 식품 관련 기본법 비교 ·································································· 21 표 3-2. 식품 관련 법체계 내 용어 정의 ··················································· 22 표 3-3. 식품별 관련 법 비교 ······································································ 24 표 3-4. 식품안전 관련 법조항 비교표 ······················································· 25 표 3-5. 품질관리 법조항 비교 ···································································· 27 표 3-6. 식품에 대한 정의 비교 ·································································· 30 표 3-7. 식품표시관련 법률에서 가공식품 범위규정 비교 ······················· 32 표 3-8. 식품 관련 업종의 허가 및 신고 관련 법률 비교 ······················· 34 표 3-9. 식품의 기준･규격 ············································································ 35 표 3-10. 표시 및 인증 관련 법률 표시제도 현황 ······································ 37 표 3-11. 유기식품인증 관련 관리기준 비교 ··············································· 38 표 3-12. GMO표시 관련 법 비교 ································································ 39 표 3-13. 원산지 표시 관련 법 비교 ···························································· 41 표 3-14. 음식점 원산지표시 관련 법 비교 ················································· 43 표 3-15. HACCP 관리 현황 ·········································································· 44 표 3-16. HACCP 관련 법 비교 ···································································· 45 표 3-17. 식품별 표시항목 비교 ···································································· 46 표 3-18. 가공식품과 축산물 표시기준 비교 ··············································· 47 표 3-19. 표시기준, 표준규격의 법간 비교 ·················································· 48.

(12) xii 제4장 표 4-1. 식품 관련 법률체계 문제점 ··························································· 50 표 4-2. 식품기본법 제･개정 필요성 ··························································· 51 표 4-3. 식품기본법 소관 부처 ······································································ 51 표 4-4. 식품 관련법 통합 방향 ·································································· 52 표 4-5. 식품 관련법 통합 기준 ···································································· 53 표 4-6. 표시 및 인증 사항 통합에 대한 평가 ·········································· 53 표 4-7. 여러법에 나뉘어져 운영되고 있는 원산지 표시제도 평가 ········ 54 표 4-8. 업종별 HACCP 적용법률 수 ························································· 55 표 4-9. HACCP 인증제도에 대한 평가 ····················································· 55 표 4-10. 유기가공식품 인증제도에 대한 평가 ············································ 56 표 4-11. 식품이력제에 대한 평가 ································································ 56 표 4-12. 벌칙형량에 대한 평가 ···································································· 57 표 4-13. 벌칙조항 형량하한제로의 변경에 대한 의견 ······························ 57 표 4-14. 표시와 관련한 법의 개정 빈도 ····················································· 58 표 4-15. 법 조항의 이해 정도 ······································································ 59 표 4-16. 법 이해 어려움 발생 시 해결방법 ··············································· 59 표 4-17. 식품 관련법의 홍보 수준 ······························································ 60 표 4-18. 식품 관련법의 교육 수준 ······························································ 60 제5장 표 5-1. 정부부처간 협력 예 ········································································ 67 표 5-2. 영국 식품안전법의 주요 내용 ······················································· 69 표 5-3. 식품･생활필수품･사료법(LFGB)의 주요 내용 ····························· 74 표 5-4. 유제품에 관한 규칙 사례 ······························································ 76 표 5-5. 온타리오 주 육류가공업자에 규정되는 법규 사례 ····················· 79 표 5-6. 식품의약품법 내 식품 관련 기본정책 조항 ································ 80.

(13) xiii 표 5-7. 식품의약품법 내 운용과 집행 조항 ·············································· 81 표 5-8. 소비자 포장 및 표시법 내용 ························································· 82 표 5-9. 식품안전 관련 단계별 적용법률과 소관부처 ······························ 87 표 5-10. 일본의 식품표시관련 법 ······························································ 88 표 5-11. 식품･첨가물 등의 성분규격기준의 예시 ······································ 89 표 5-12. 일본의 식품표시제도에서 규정하고 있는 표시관련 사항 ·········· 90 표 5-13. JAS규격의 품목과 규격의 예시(일반 JAS) ································· 91 표 5-14. 건강과 영양에 관한 표시를 실시하는 제도 ································ 92 표 5-15. 건강증진법에 근거한 표시내용의 특징 ········································ 92 표 5-16. 식품안전 및 품질관련 분야별 소관부처와 관련법규 등의 개요 ········· 93 표 5-17. 일본의 식품산업관련 주요대책 ····················································· 96 표 5-18. 소비자청설치법 시행에 따른 관련 법률 정비방안 ····················· 98 제6장 표 6-1. WTO 하의 식품 관련 산업 지원과 규제가 적법할 수 있는 기준 ····· 102 표 6-2. 다른 나라의 식품에 대한 정의 ··················································· 113 표 6-3. 식품산업관련 협회의 소속 법률에 대한 의견 ··························· 114 표 6-4. 진흥법에서 협회관련 조항 포함 사례 ········································ 114 표 6-5. 식품진흥기금의 소속 법률에 대한 의견 ···································· 115 표 6-6. ‘기금’이 언급된 법 ······································································· 115 표 6-7. 현행 식품위생법 조항별 주관법률 성격 검토 ··························· 118 표 6-8. 식품 관련 법률별 개정 건수(2007년 기준) ······························· 121 표 6-9. 법 해설서 및 Q&A집의 필요성 ·················································· 123 표 6-10. 식품 관련법 홍보증진 방안 ························································· 124.

(14) xiv. 그 림 차 례. 제1장 그림 1-1. 연구체계도 ····················································································· 8 제2장 그림 2-1. 소관부처별 식품 관련 법률 현황 ·············································· 10 그림 2-2. 식품안전 관련 법 체계 ······························································ 15 그림 2-3. 식품품질 관련 법 체계 ······························································ 16 그림 2-4. 식품산업 관련 법체계 ································································ 18 제4장 그림 4-1. 법의 통합 중요성 ········································································ 52 제5장 그림 5-1. 건강소비자국 체계도 ·································································· 62 그림 5-2. 유럽연합 식품기본법의 체계 ····················································· 64 그림 5-3. 정부기관 협력관계 ······································································ 67 그림 5-4. 영국의 식품법 체계 ···································································· 68 그림 5-5. 식품농업소비자보호부(BMELV) 조직도 ··································· 72 그림 5-6. 식품･생활필수품･사료법(LFGB)에 근거한 규칙의 체계 ········ 73 그림 5-7. 일본의 식품 관련 법체계 ··························································· 86 그림 5-8. 식품안전관련 법체계 ·································································· 87 그림 5-9. 식품산업육성을 위한 식료농업농촌기본법과 기본계획의 대응관계······ 95 그림 5-10. 식품안전 및 식교육 관련 식료농업농촌기본법과 기본계획의 대응관계······· 96.

(15) xv 제6장 그림 6-1. 식품 관련 법률체계 개편도(제1안) ········································· 105 그림 6-2. 식품 관련 법률체계 개편도(제2안) ······································· 106 그림 6-3. JAS법에 관한 Q＆A ································································· 121 그림 6-4. 법 해설서 ··················································································· 123.

(16) 1. 제. 서. 1. 장. 론. 1. 연구의 필요성과 목적. 1.1. 연구의 필요성 식품은 헌법이 설정한 최고의 가치인 국민의 생명과 건강에 직결되는 대표 적인 요소로서 국가로부터 법률적으로 보호되어야 할 대상이다. 따라서 소비자 에게 안전하고 품질 좋은 식품을 안정적으로 공급하기 위한 소비자 보호기능 확립과 식품공급체계 구축을 위해서는 식품 관련 법체계의 합리적인 운영이 뒷받침되어야 한다. 반면 현행 식품과 관련된 법령은 다수의 부처에서 관련 법률에 의한 다원적 인 관리체제를 취하고 있어 규제의 분산과 중복 사례가 발생하고, 전문성･통일 성･책임성･신속성이 결여되어 리스크 발생 시 신속한 대처가 용이하지 않다. 또한 관리의 사각지대가 발생하고 책임소재가 불분명하며, 상호 정보 공유 미 흡으로 안전관리 기능이 취약한 문제점을 나타내고 있다. 유럽 및 캐나다 등지의 식품 관련법은 상하위 법률체계가 명확하고, 상호 견 제 및 역할 분담이 분명한 특징을 보인다. 또한 이들 국가에서는 역사적으로 식품 관련 법률 간의 통합 움직임이 나타나고 있다..

(17) 2 따라서 법률적 관점과 운영 실태 파악을 통해 현행 식품 관련 법체계의 문제 점을 파악하고, 외국의 식품법 사례를 참고하여 식품 관련 법체계 개편방향이 마련될 필요가 있다. 식품 관련 정보가 소비자에게 효율적으로 전달되고 소비 자 선호변화에 대응한 식품 산업 기반 조성을 제도적으로 뒷받침하는 법률체 계 개선 방안이 마련되어야 할 것이다.. 1.2. 연구목적 이 연구는 우리나라 식품 관련 법에 대한 법률적 검토, 수요자 조사를 통한 실행평가, 주요국의 식품법 사례 검토 등을 바탕으로 식품 관련 법률체계의 효 율적인 운영을 위한 기초자료를 제시하는데 목적이 있다. 국민의 복리후생 증진과 식품산업 발전을 위해 식품 관련 법률체계의 바람 직한 모습을 제시하기 위해 현행 식품법에 대한 기업체, 소비자, 농어업생산자, 식품 관련 전문가, 법률가의 평가를 종합적으로 감안하고, 주요국의 법체계 식 품 관련 ‘규제’와 ‘진흥’법 사례를 검토하여 식품법 체계 개선방향을 제시하고 자 한다.. 2. 선행연구 검토. 식품법과 관련한 연구는 크게 식품안전관리와 표시제도로 나누어 살펴 볼 수 있다. 우선 식품안전관리와 관련한 연구를 살펴보면, 양병우 외(2003)는 우 리나라의 식품 관리체계가 포괄적 식료정책적 접근방식이 결여되어 있다고 보 았으며 부처분산적 관리체계로 인해 체계적인 관리가 이루어지고 있지 못하다 고 하였다. 반면 EU는 식품법의 대상에 가축의 사료까지 포함되어 있으며 식 품법 일반원칙에 식품과 관련한 내용이 포괄적으로 서술되어 있다고 하였다..