가공식품 원료 등 원산지 표시방법 개선에 관한 연구

Abstract

The detection of industrial chemical melamine in processed foods imported from China in 2008, has deepened the public anxiety towards imported foods. The incident has raised the need for improving the country of origin labelling for processed foods. In this context, this study has the purpose of setting out the reasonable criteria for country of origin labelling for processed foods, which will provide more information for consumers and ensure the orderly distribution of processed foods in the market. For the composition of this study, Chapter 2 takes a look at the current operating status of the country of orgin labeling for processed foods and the recent trend of related discussions. Chapter 3 analyzes the survey result of food processing companies to find out their application status of the country of origin labeling requirement. Chapter 4 describes the survey findings about consumers' stance on the country of origin labeling. In Chapter 5, the current status of managing the country of origin labeling in major countries is investigated with a focus on the Japanese market. Chapter 6 provides an insight into the current issues surrounding labeling for processed foods and respective reactions to them. So far, a lot of views have been proposed and discussed on the ways of improving the current country of origin labeling scheme for processed foods: To name a few, firstly, it was suggested to indicate the 'name of exporting country' instead of simply marking 'imported', which is allowed under the exception of the labeling requirement, in order to fulfil the consumers' right to know. Secondly, a need of labeling improvement was pointed out regarding the foods made of multiple ingredients. The listing-up of entire ingredients is often complicated, troubling food companies and inefficient in delivering information to consumers. Thirdly, the need of expanding the scope of food items subject to labeling was raised. Currently 211 food items are mandated for labeling, but discussions are under way to expand the scope by including labeling exclusion items such as coffee, alcohol, sweets and table salt. Fourthly, a review is under way on marking the name of manufactured country of processed or half-processed food products on top of the origin of country for raw materials. This is in line with the request for more information on the places of food processing, which was sparked by the occurrence of the 'shrimp snack' scandal in 2008 where foreign materials were found in the shrimp snack which was initially processed in China and imported back to Korea. In the survey, 147 food processing companies and 500 consumers were questioned and found that to some degree all of them agreed to the need of country of origin labeling for processed foods. However, regarding some key controversies, they have shown different opinions. Consumers and processed food companies are found to take opposite positions on expanding the scope of labeling. According to the survey, consumers agreed to expanding the scope of items subject to labeling by 84.2%, while processed food companies said the scope of labeling should be rather reduced by 60.5%. Nevertheless, among the food items currently excluded from mandatory labeling, for table salt, both of the two groups were positive about its labeling. Also, difference is notable between consumers and food processing companies related to the number of ingredients required for country of origin labeling. In the survey, consumers who are for expanding the scope of ingredients subject to mandatory labeling accounted for 70.2%. To the contrary, 73.3% of responded food processing companies said the labeling should cover main ingredients only as it is now. Under the current law, when the ingredients from more than three countries are used, only main two country of origins are indicated. On this, food processing companies and consumers showed difference. Food processing companies said the current law is appropriate or needs to be eased by reducing the number of origin countries mandated for labeling. However, 65.5% of consumers responded opted to mandate the labeling of all countries of origin. Again in the survey, a controversy was found surrounding the shift in labeling from 'imported' to 'the name of exporting country.' Under the current labeling exception, food companies are allowed to simply mark 'imported' due to technical difficulty and cost issue. In this regard, they are objecting to the idea of mandating the labeling of 'name of exporting country' by 65.9%. However, consumers were found to be positive about the idea by 95.0%. The gap is also clear regarding the details on implementing the change between consumers and food processing companies as well as between food processing companies by size. Consumers and food processing companies didn't reach an agreement on the idea of deleting 'mix ratio' from label. As shown above, the ways of improving the current rules permitting labeling exclusion are very much different between consumers and food importers. Therefore, in the process of discussing improvements in labeling country of origin for raw materials and detailed implementation methods, not only consumers but also food processing companies which bear the technical and cost burden, need to be taken into consideration. For the labeling of 'manufactured country (intermediary manufactured country),' companies with more revenues tend to be more negative. To the opposite, consumers prefer to making country of origin and manufactured country labelled for all food products. The labeling of manufactured country is meaningful in terms of providing information with consumers. However, on the implementation stage, the view of the companies, which are actually following the rule, is critical so that their opinions should be reflected on improving the labeling plan. Lastly, the difficulty in labeling multiple ingredients was pointed out. The survey shows that the dominant view of the food processing companies is that it is difficult to label country of origin and the mix ratio for multiple ingredients at the individual ingredient level. Therefore, down the road, various exemplary labeling cases should be searched for, and both consumers and food processing companies should be invited to review and offer their opinions on them.