Page 121 - 2023 Taiwan Food and Drug Administration Annual Report

7Appendix

Numbering Project name Results

(VII) Food safety monitoring plan: 64 companies were not applicable, 3 companies

were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-

inspections.

Inspection Project for (VIII) Product liability insurance: 1 company did not meet requirements.

14 Processed Aquatic (IX) Others:

Food Plants 1.3 companies stored expired food ingredients.

2.5 companies did not have a hygiene inspector.

II. Labeling: All 146 cases met requirements.

III.Random inspection: 1 case out of 115 cases did not meet requirements.

I. Inspected: 139 companies

(I) GHP: 74 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were

qualified through the re-inspections.

(II) Food business registration: 5 companies were not applicable, 26 companies

15 Inspection Project for were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
Chinese Steamed inspections.
Food Manufacturers (III) Product liability insurance: 1 company did not meet requirements.
(IV) Others:

1.1 company stored expired food additives.

2.1 company did not hire hygiene inspectors.

II. Labeling: 3 cases out of 374 cases did not meet requirements.

III.Random inspection: 2 cases out of 210 cases did not meet requirements.

I. Inspected: 67 companies

(I) GHP: 7 companies were not applicable, 40 companies were asked to correct by a

given deadline, and 1 company failed the re-inspections.

(II) HACCP: 55 companies were not applicable, 9 companies were asked to correct

by a given deadline, and all were qualified through the re-inspections.

(III) Food business registration: 17 companies were asked to correct by a given

deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.

(IV) Mandatory inspection: 55 companies were not applicable, 2 companies were

asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-

inspections.

(V) Use and management of food additives: 65 companies were not applicable, 1

company was asked to correct by a given deadline, and was qualified through the

re-inspections.

(VI) Traceability: 55 companies are not applicable, 1 company was asked to correct

by a given deadline and was qualified through the re-inspections.

16 Inspection Project (VII) Food safety monitoring plan: 64 companies were not applicable and the
for Chicken remaining 3 companies were all qualified.

Essence Products (VIII) Food Traceability Management Information System: 55 companies were not
Manufacturers applicable, 2 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were
qualified through the re-inspections.

(IX) Retention of source documents: 7 companies were not applicable and 7

companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified

through the re-inspections.

(X) Waste management: 7 companies were not applicable, 19 companies were asked

to correct by a given deadline and 1 company failed the re-inspections.

(XI) Standard form contract: 23 companies were not applicable, 14 companies

were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-

inspections.

(XII) Others:

1. 1 company stored expired foods.

2. 4 companies did not hire hygiene inspectors.

II. Labeling: 4 cases out of 102 cases did not meet requirements.

III.Random inspection: 92 cases

(I) Finished chicken essence products: All 57 cases met requirements.

(II) Raw chicken: All 35 cases met requirements.

119