Page 120 - 2023 Taiwan Food and Drug Administration Annual Report
P. 120
2023 Taiwan Food and
Drug Administration
Annual Report
Numbering Project name Results
I. Inspected: 54 companies
(I) GHP: 20 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were
qualified through the re-inspections.
(II) HACCP: 36 companies were not applicable, 13 companies were asked to correct
by a given deadline, and all of them were qualified through the re-inspections.
Inspection project (III) Food business registration: 7 companies were asked to correct by a given
11 for liquid egg deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
manufacturers (IV) Traceability: 48 companies were not applicable and all the remaining 6 companies
were qualified.
II. Labeling: All 120 cases of liquid egg products were qualified.
III.Random inspection: 177 cases
(I) Fresh raw eggs: 1 case out of 54 cases did not meet requirements.
(II) Liquid egg products: All 123 cases met requirements.
I. Inspected: 25 companies
(I) GHP: 16 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were
qualified through the re-inspections.
(II) HACCP: 21 companies were not applicable, 2 companies were asked to correct by
a given deadline, and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
Inspection Project (III)Food business registration: 1 company was not applicable, 9 companies were
12 for Pickled Eggs and asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
Ready-to-Serve Eggs inspections.
Manufacturers (IV)Others:
1. 1 company stored expired foods.
2. 1 company did not hire hygiene inspectors.
II. Random inspection: 56 cases
(I) Fresh eggs raw materials: All 19 cases met requirements.
(II) Pickled and ready-to-serve eggs: All 37 cases met requirements.
I. Inspected: 73 companies
(I) GHP: 41 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline, and all were
qualified through the re-inspections.
(II) Food business registration: 14 companies were asked to correct by a given
13 Inspection Project deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
for Soy Sauce (III) Retention of source documents: 1 company was not applicable and 3 companies
Manufacturers
were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
inspections.
(IV) Product liability insurance: 1 company was not applicable and the remaining 72
companies met requirements.
II. Labeling: 9 cases out of 183 cases did not meet requirements.
III.Random inspection: All 110 cases of finished soy sauce products met requirements.
I. Inspected: 76 companies
(I) GHP: 44 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and 1 company
failed the re-inspections.
(II) HACCP: 43 companies were not applicable, 25 companies were asked to correct
by a given deadline, and 1 company failed the re-inspections.
(III) Food business registration: 22 companies were asked to correct by a given
Inspection Project for deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
14 Processed Aquatic (IV) Mandatory inspection: 50 companies were not applicable, 8 companies were
Food Plants asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
inspections.
(V) Traceability: 44 companies were not applicable, 3 companies were asked to
correct by a given deadline, and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
(VI) Electronic declaration: 44 companies were not applicable, 12 companies were
asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
inspections.
118
