Page 104 - 2021 Taiwan Food and Drug Administration Annual Report

Numbering Project name Results

I. Inspected: 99 companies

(I) GHP: 35 companies were required to make improvements within a deadline

and all of them passed the re-inspection.

(II) Registration: 9 companies were required to make improvements within a

deadline and all of them passed the re-inspection.

16 Inspection project (III)Product liability insurance: All were in compliance with the regulations.
for soy sauce (IV)Others:
manufacturers
1. 1 company did not have a hygiene inspector.
FRPSDQ\ GLG QRW KLUH SURIHVVLRQDO VWDႇ RU WHFKQLFDO SHUVRQQHO

,, /DEHOLQJ FDVHV RI ¿QLVKHG SURGXFWV RI ZKLFK FDVHV GLG QRW PHHW WKH

regulations.

III.Random inspection:

(I) Soy sauce products: 155 cases, of which 1 case did not meet the regulations.

(II) Caramel pigment: 12 cases, all were in compliance with the regulations.

I. Inspected: 208 companies

(I) GHP: 93 companies were required to make improvements within a deadline

and all of them passed the re-inspection.

(II) HACCP: A total of 28 companies should implement HACCP, of which

Inspection Project 24 companies were required to make improvements with a deadline; 23

17 for Popular Hotel companies passed the re-inspection and 1 company did not pass the re-

Restaurants inspection.

(III)Registration: 46 companies were required to make improvements within a

deadline and all of them passed the re-inspection.

(IV)Other: 13 companies stored expired foods.

II. Random inspection: 215 cases, of which 4 cases did not meet the regulations.

I. Inspected: 206 companies

(I) GHP: 5 companies were not applicable;72 companies were required to make

improvements within a deadline and all of them passed the re-inspection.

(II) Registration: 14 companies required improvement within a deadline, and all

of them had passed the re-inspection.

(III)Product liability insurance: 5 companies were not applicable and the

18 Inspection Project for remaining 201 companies were in compliance with the regulations.
Banquet Restaurants (IV)Percentage of personnel holding technical licenses: 5 companies were not

applicable and the remaining 201 companies were in compliance with the

regulations.

(V)Other: 5 companies stored expired foods.

II. On-site labeling: 5 companies were not applicable and the remaining 201

companies were in compliance with the regulations.

III.Random inspection: 106 cases, of which 2 cases did not meet the regulations.

I. Inspected: 259 companies

(I) GHP: 116 companies were required to make improvements within a deadline

and all of them passed the re-inspection.

(II) Registration: 20 companies were not applicable, 28 companies were required

to make improvements within a deadline and all of them passed the re-

19 Random Inspection inspection.
Project for Drinks (III)Retain the source documents: 29 companies were required to make

Made on Site corrections within a deadline, all of which had passed the re-inspection.
(IV)Others:

1.1 company stored expired foods.

2.Food utensils were not labeled as required: 1 case

II. On-site labeling: 165 companies, of which 11 companies did not meet the

regulations.

III.Random inspection: 333 cases, of which 7 cases did not meet the regulations.

I. Inspected: 105 companies

(I) GHP: 48 companies were required to make improvements within a deadline

and all of them passed the re-inspection.

(II) Registration: 3 companies were not applicable, 14 companies were required

Random Inspection to make improvements within a deadline and all of them passed the re-

20 Project for Ice inspection.
Products Made on (III)Retain the source documents: 17 companies were required to make

Site corrections within a deadline, all of which had passed the re-inspection.

(IV)Others:

1.1 company stored expired foods.

2.1 food business was not insured with product liability insurance.

II. Random inspection: 183 cases, of which 1 case did not meet the regulations.

102