Page 116 - 2023 Taiwan Food and Drug Administration Annual Report
P. 116
2023 Taiwan Food and
Drug Administration
Annual Report
▍ Exhibit 4 Food project of inspections and random inspections in 2022
Numbering Project name Results
I. Inspected: 113 companies
(I) GHP: 5 companies were not applicable, 77 companies were asked to correct by a
given deadline, and 2 companies failed the re-inspections.
(II) HACCP: 15 companies were not applicable, 91 companies were asked to correct
by a given deadline, and 3 companies failed the re-inspections.
(III) Food business registration: 1 company was not applicable, 32 companies were
asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
inspections.
(IV) Mandatory inspection: 22 companies were not applicable, 34 companies were
HACCP Inspection asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
1 Project for Processed inspections.
Meat Industry (V) Traceability: 24 companies were not applicable, 36 companies were asked to
correct by a given deadline, and 2 companies failed the re-inspections.
(VI) Others:
1.5 companies stored expired foods.
2.5 companies did not have a hygiene inspector.
3.1 company did not hire professional staff or technical personnel.
II. Labeling: All 312 cases were qualified.
III.Random inspection: 210 cases
(I) Raw meat: All 151 cases were qualified.
(II) Processed products: All 59 cases were qualified.
I. Inspected: 72 companies
(I) GHP: 1 company was not applicable, 40 companies were asked to correct by a
given deadline, and all of them were qualified through the re-inspections.
(II) HACCP: 1 company was not applicable, 52 companies were asked to correct by a
given deadline, and 1 company failed the re-inspections.
(III) Food business registration: 1 company was not applicable, 10 companies were
asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
inspections.
(IV) Food safety monitoring plan: 64 companies were not applicable and the
remaining 8 companies were all qualified.
(V) Food Traceability Management Information System: 5 companies were not
2 HACCP Inspection applicable, 19 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were
Project for Meal Box qualified through the re-inspections.
(VI) Waste management: 1 company was not applicable, 8 companies were asked to
Factories correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
(VII) Information about the origins of pork and beef was provided to downstream
practitioners: 1 company was not applicable while all the other 71 companies
met the requirement.
(VIII) Others:
1. 2 companies stored expired foods.
2. 1 company did not hire hygiene inspectors.
3. 2 companies did not hire specialized professionals or technicians.
II. Random inspection: 211 cases
(I) Finished products: All 71 cases met requirements.
(II) Semi-finished products: 4 cases out of 71 cases did not meet requirements.
(III)Pork raw materials: All 69 cases met requirements.
I. Inspected: 69 companies
(I) GHP: 29 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and 2 companies
failed the re-inspections.
3 HACCP Inspection (II) HACCP: 41 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and 3
Project for Canned companies failed the re-inspection.
Food Factories (III)Food business registration: 13 companies were asked to correct by a given
deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
(IV)Mandatory inspection: 22 companies were not applicable;2 companies were
asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
inspections.
114
