Page 123 - 2023 Taiwan Food and Drug Administration Annual Report

7Appendix

Numbering Project name Results

I. Food delivery operators: 7 companies

(I) GHP: 1 company was asked to correct by a given deadline and was qualified

through the re-inspections.

(II) Food business registration: 1 company was asked to correct by a given deadline

and was qualified through the re-inspections.

(III) Standard form contract: 1 company was asked to correct by a given deadline and

was qualified through the re-inspections.

(IV) Customer complaint handling process: 1 company was asked to correct by a

given deadline and was qualified through the re-inspections.

Inspection Project II. Food and beverage operators collaborating with food delivery platforms: 465

21 for Food Delivery companies

Platform Operators (I) GHP: 192 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and 1 company of

them failed the re-inspections.

(II) Food business registration: 12 companies were not applicable, 98 companies

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

inspections.

(III) Product liability insurance: 32 companies were not applicable and remaining 433

companies were qualified.

(IV) Labeling: 1 company did not meet requirements.

(V)Random inspection: 2 cases out of 462 cases did not meet requirements.

III.Service staff of food delivery platform: All 228 people met requirements.

I. Inspected: 207 companies

(I) GHP: 75 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and were qualified

through the re-inspections.

(II) HACCP: A total of 19 companies should implement HACCP, of which 18

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

through the re-inspections.

(III) Food business registration: 1 company were not applicable, 43 companies

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

22 for Restaurants in inspections.

Popular Hotels (IV) Standard form contract: 162 companies were not applicable, 2 companies

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

inspections.

(V)Others:

1.3 companies stored expired ingredients.

2.2 companies did not hire professional staff.

II. On-site labeling: 2 companies out of 207 companies did not meet requirements.

III.Random inspection: 1 case out of 244 cases did not meet requirements.

I. Inspected: 177 companies

(I) GHP: 69 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were

qualified through the re-inspections.

(II) Food business registration: 9 companies were not applicable, 26 companies

23 Inspection Project for were asked to correct by a given deadline and all were qualified through the re-
Noodles Restaurant inspections.
(III) Retention of source documents: 11 companies were asked to correct by a given
Operators deadline and all were qualified through the re-inspections.

(IV) Product liability insurance: 26 companies were not applicable and the remaining

151 companies met requirements.

II. On-site labeling: All 177 companies met requirements.

III.Random inspection: 2 cases out of 308 cases did not meet requirements.

I. Inspected: 293 companies

(I) GHP: 116 companies were asked to correct by a given deadline and no failure was

found in the re-inspection.

(II) Food business registration: 11 companies were not applicable, 26 companies

were asked to correct by a given deadline and no failure was found in the re-

Random Inspection inspection.

24 Project for Drinks (III)Management of food additives: 288 companies were not applicable and the

Made on Site remaining 5 companies were qualified.

(IV)Retention of source documents: 22 companies were asked to correct by a given

deadline and no failure was found in the re-inspection.

(V)Others: 1 company stored expired foods.

II. On-site labeling: 26 companies out of 204 companies did not meet requirements.

III.Random inspection: 2 cases out of 401 cases did not meet requirements.

121