Page 122 - 2023 Taiwan Food and Drug Administration Annual Report
P. 122
2023 Taiwan Food and
Drug Administration
Annual Report
Numbering Project name Results
I. Inspected: 101 companies
(I) GHP: 65 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and 2 companies
were failed the re-inspections.
17 lnspection Project (II) Food business registration: 1 company was not applicable, 31 companies were
for Bean Products asked to correct by a given deadline and 1 company failed the re-inspections.
Manufacturers (III)Product liability insurance: 3 companies were not applicable and 1 company did
not meet requirements.
(IV)Others: 9 companies did not hire hygiene inspectors.
II. Labeling: 1 case out of 58 cases did not meet requirements.
III.Random inspection: 3 cases out of 116 cases did not meet requirements.
I. Inspected: 40 companies
(I) GHP: 1 company was not applicable, 14 companies were asked to correct by a
given deadline, and all of them were qualified through the re-inspections.
(II) Food business registration: 6 companies were asked to correct by a given
deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
(III) Mandatory inspection: 8 companies were not applicable and the remaining 32
companies were qualified.
(IV) Use and management of food additives: 4 companies were not applicable, 5
companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified
through the re-inspections.
(V) Traceability: 8 companies were not applicable, 2 companies were asked to correct
18 Inspection Project by a given deadline, and all of them were qualified through the re-inspections.
for Microwave Food (VI) Food safety monitoring plan: 8 companies were not applicable, 3 companies
Manufacturers were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
inspections.
(VII) Food Traceability Management Information System: 8 companies were not
applicable, 8 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were
qualified through the re-inspections.
(VIII) Retention of source documents: All 40 companies were qualified.
(IX) Waste management: 1 company was not applicable, 3 companies were asked to
correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
(X) Others: 1 company stored expired foods.
II. Labeling: 1 case out of 78 cases did not meet requirements.
III.Random inspection: 89 cases:
(I) Finished microwave foods: All 76 cases met requirements.
(II) Plastic containers or utensils: All 13 cases met requirements.
I. Inspected: 75 companies
(I) GHP: 44 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were
qualified through the re-inspections.
(II) Food business registration: 6 companies were not applicable, 11 companies
Inspection Project for were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
19 Pickled Vegetables inspections.
Manufacturers (III) Product liability insurance: 9 companies were not applicable and 2 companies did
not meet requirements.
II. Labeling: 3 cases out of 75 cases did not meet requirements.
III.Random inspection: 1 case out of 70 cases finished products did not meet
requirements.
I. Inspected: 202 companies
(I) GHP: 20 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were
qualified through the re-inspections.
Random Inspection (II) Food business registration: 10 companies were not applicable, 8 companies
20 and Inspection were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
Project for Pickled inspections.
Vegetables Vendors (III) Retention of source documents: 7 companies were asked to correct by a given
deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.
II. Labeling: 8 cases out of 253 cases did not meet requirements.
III.Random inspections: 49 cases out of 444 cases did not meet requirements.
120
