近年來，我國食品安全爭議屢傳，就違反食安法規而非法添加、製造之食品對消費者身體健康造成之損害，消保會於塑化劑、大統油事件中，皆曾透過民法、消保法、食安法上之商品責任規定，為消費者提出損害賠償之團體訴訟，然而，在實體上，食用不符合衛生安全法規製造生產之食品，是否可認定必然對人體健康造成損害？具體疾病之發生與規範意義下之損害應如何區別應用？另，消保法上懲罰性賠償金究否由食品製造業者連帶負擔賠償責任？在食安法下，懲罰性賠償金之連帶是否有相異之解釋？在程序上，因疾病發生於醫學判斷上之多因性，使問題食品與身體健康權受侵害間之因果關係舉證陷入困難；而長期食用問題食品卻未罹患疾病者，其健康權之受損又應如何舉證？凡此，為食品安全之損害賠償訴訟中不可避免之核心議題，本文擬以實務判決所遇困境出發，探求食安訴訟下商品責任之解釋與適用。

2011年5月臺灣爆發不肖業者將具有毒性之塑化劑添加入合法食品添加物─起雲劑當中，販賣給多家食品業者，用以生產各種食品及飲料，戕害國民健康。惟案件中消費者僅獲賠求償額的兩千分之一，差距甚大，明顯不如預期，更是引發社會諸多撻伐。本論文藉由上述塑化劑案件，探討食品安全消費訴訟消費者求償困境並檢討現行法的缺失與不足，以符合消費者權益保障之宗旨。 文章中首先針對食品安全消費訴訟特性以及我國食品管制上主管機關的權責劃分進行概念性介紹，並就訴訟中消費者可主張的民法、消費者保護法、食品安全衛生管理法上請求權基礎進行要件及爭點說明。其次，就損害賠償之概念及損害進行界定與討論。另由於此類型訴訟，消費者食用問題產品後，多半不會產生立即性身體傷害或臨床病徵，導致訴訟上消費者就其所受之損害難以舉證而敗訴，故本文藉由參酌美國毒物侵權行為訴訟上之損害認定，將損害概念擴張至損害或「損害之虞」，以解決訴訟上消費者損害認定不易的難題。 此外，於因果關係舉證方面，則藉由德國環境責任法、德國基因科技法上之原因推定理論、美國法上市場佔有率責任之因果關係以及日本法上疫學因果關係理論，作為此類型訴訟我國因果關係認定之參考，並就損害賠償範圍、我國懲罰性賠償金制度的引進、目的、重要爭點等析述討論之。最後，本論文藉由實務上判決，觀察現行食品安全衛生管理法第56條法院適用情形，從中檢討現行條文不盡完備之處，並嘗試提出相關修法建議，希冀可作為將來立法者修法之參考。 / In May, 2011 the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration reported that plasticizers, such as: di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) and di(iso-nonyl)phthalate (DINP), were illegally added to clouding agents used in foods and several beverages.The endocrine disruptors have been linked to developmental problems with children and pregnant women, etc.This paper would mainly discuss the issues of the reflection of civil liabilities arising from food scandals, particularly focus on the plasticizer food scandal in Taiwan. First, the author gives an overview of consumer litigation of food safety, food administration in Taiwan, and the basic of claim such as the Civil law, the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation as well as the Consumer Protection Law.Secondly, interprets the concept of civil compensationand expand the traditional concept of personal injury to risk of injury (the plaintiff has not manifested any symptoms of disease but may suffer from illness in the future) by referring to toxic tort.Thirdly, illustrates the special rules on causation in the aspect of the environmental liability law, the biotech law and the market share liability to solve the problems of the causation.Fourthly,probes the compensation scope and punitive damages. Finally,by observing court decisions on article 56 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, the author analyzes the deletion of existing legal norms and suggests a proposal for law amendments.