Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
標題: 台灣中部地區市售食品中防腐劑調查 (2015-2017)
Investigation of preservatives for food sold in central Taiwan (2015-2017)
作者: 黃莉芬
Li-Feng Huang
關鍵字: 防腐劑;食品;市售;台灣中部;preservatives;food;sale;Central Taiwan
引用: 1. 衛生福利部食品藥物管理署(2012)。臺北: 食品藥物研究年報。131-137。 2. 王有忠(2005)。食品添加物 (防腐劑)。81-110。臺北: 華香園出版社。 3. 衛生福利部食品藥物管理署(2018)。食品法規查詢。食品添加物使用範圍及限量暨規格標準第二條附表。衛生福利部。 4. 台美科技檢驗有驗公司(2018)。常見食品非法添加物檢驗分析。檢自。 5. Registry for Toxic Substances and Disease Agency. (2010). Toxicological Profile for Boron. Public Health Service (p.11). USA Maryland: HHS. 6. (match 生活網, 2017) 7. CommissionEuropean. (2008). Boric Acid IUCLID Dataset. Ispra: European Chemicals Bureau. 8. shii, Y., Fujizuka, N. and Takahashi, T. et al. (1993). A Fatal Case of Acute Boric Acid Poisoning. Clinical Toxicology (p.31). University of New Mexico : Taylor and Francis.Restuccio, A.; Mortensen, ME; Kelley, MT (1992). 'Fatal Ingestion of Boric Acid in an Adult'. 9. 國家環境醫學研究所國家環境毒物研究中心 (2016)。4。年度網站公告之新聞解讀與資訊總整理新聞總整。 10. 衛生福利部食品藥物管理署(2018)。食品安全衛生管理法。中華民國一百零七年一月二十四日總統令修正公布。 11. 衛生福利部食品藥物管理署(2018)。本署新聞。摘自。 12. Originally published in Guidelines for drinking-water quality , 2nd ed. Addendum to Vol. 2. Health criteria and other supporting information. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1998 13. ButticèClaudio. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Cancer and Society (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp.1089-1091 14. 香港特別行政區政府食品安全中心(2009)。食物中含甲醛。香港:風險簡訊。 15. IARC. (2006). Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. WHO, Volume 88. 16. Malakar, Sreepurna, Gibson, Peter R., Barrett, Jacqueline S. and Muir, Jane G. (2017). Naturally occurring dietary salicylates: A closer look at common Australian foods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 31-39. 17. Anne R. Rwain, Stephenp.Ditton and A.Stewart Truswell. (1985/08/08). Salicylates in foods. The American Dietetic Association, Volume 85. 18. The International Pharmacopoeia. (2015). Essential Medicines. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 19. Muhammad Waseem,MBBS,MS,FAAP,FACEP,FAHA. (2107/12/20). Salicylate Toxicity. MedScape: 20. Haynes M.William. (2015). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, (92nd Edition) . Florida, USA: CRC Press. 21. 經濟合作暨發展組織SIDS Initial Assessment Report for 9th SIAM (France, June 29-July 1, 1999) 22. Swain, T. (1979). Biochemistry of Plant Phenolics. New York: Plenum. 23. 國家環境醫學研究所國家環境毒物研究中心(2015)。年度網站公告之新聞解讀與資訊總整理。40-42。 24. 林杰樑(2006)。生活中的毒之 3-輕輕鬆鬆說毒解毒。台北:宏新文化。 25. 國家環境醫學研究所國家環境毒物研究中心(2016)。年度網站公告之新聞解讀與資訊總整理。47。 26. 杜秦溫。食品科學概論 (107) 新北:千華數位。 445。 27. 臺中市政府衛生局104年度施政計畫。第二部分16-9。 摘自。 28. 台中市政府。中市衛生局主動強化團膳抽驗機制。摘自。 29. Anthony C. Dweck (Dec 1994.) Natural Ingredint Resource Central。摘自 (2018)。
本研究基於中部區域聯合分工檢驗市售食品防腐劑計畫,統計調查於2015年1月至2017年12月三年間收集來自臺中市、南投縣與彰化縣的6,518件樣品,依照衛生福利部公告的食品中防腐劑之檢驗方法結果調查,針對法規許可的食品添加物其中12項進行檢驗。抽驗6,518件檢體當中,檢驗結果6,384件合格,合格率98 %。合格率較低的種類依次是2015年米濕製品合格率91.3 %;2016年醬菜和醃製蔬菜合格率91.2 %;2017年米濕製品合格率94.4 %。檢體檢出不合格之防腐劑以苯甲酸最常見(72 %),己二烯酸次之(23 %)。2015年抽驗學校午餐食材檢驗中防腐劑100件全部合格;2016年抽167件合格率99.4%;2017年抽驗291件合格率99%,一般咸認安全的校園食材仍有不合格現象值得持續關注。傳統年節食品專案抽驗,結果顯示不合格率介於9.7% 到全部合格之間,建議應持續教育輔導業者並維持抽驗稽核以監控市售食品食材安全。本研究調查結果指出常見防腐劑不合格的食品項目應持續加強抽驗,連續數年合格的品項則可建議調整資源。常見違規使用的防腐劑則應從添加物源頭開始輔導相關業者防腐劑正確使用方式,以期減少誤用錯用的情形。

This study is based on the central regional joint division of labor to test the market for food preservatives. The statistical survey collected 6,518 samples from Taichung City, Nantou County and Changhua County from January 2015 to December 2017, according to the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The method of testing preservatives in foods is tested against 12 of the food additives approved by the regulations. Among the 6,518 specimens, 6,384 were qualified and the pass rate was 98%. The lower qualified rate was followed by the qualified rate of wet rice products in 2015 of 91.3%; the pass rate of pickles and pickled vegetables in 2016 was 91.2%; the pass rate of wet products in 2017 was 94.4%. The unprepared preservatives detected by the specimens were most common with benzoic acid (72%) and hexadienoic acid (23%). In 2015, 100 pieces of preservatives in the lunch inspection of the school were all qualified; in 2016, the pass rate of 167 pieces was 99.4%; in 2017, the pass rate of 291 pieces was 99%, and the general condition of the school foods that were safe and safe was still unsatisfactory. . The traditional annual food project sampling test showed that the unqualified rate ranged from 9.7% to full qualification. It is recommended that the education counselors should be continued and the sampling audit should be maintained to monitor the safety of food ingredients in the market. The results of this study indicate that food items that are not qualified for common preservatives should continue to be strengthened. For eligible products for several consecutive years, resources may be recommended. Commonly used preservatives should be used to guide the correct use of preservatives from the source of the additives, in order to reduce the misuse of misuse.
Rights: 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務
Appears in Collections:食品暨應用生物科技學系

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-107-5100043006-1.pdf1.27 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network    Request a copy
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.