evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

SAFE-i24 — South Korea's Automated Electronic Review for Imported Food Safety

South Korea · Cheongju · See the South Korea profile

Top 50% 60/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

South Korea's MFDS built SAFE-i24, an automated electronic document-screening system for imports of low-risk, repeat food shipments. Piloted in 2022–2023, a 2024 survey found 95% of 273 importers rated it positively; the OECD selected it as a 2026 government-innovation case.

Details

Promoter
Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS)
Period
2022–2026
Keywords
food safety, customs, regulatory compliance, digital government

Description

Context — South Korea's Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) built "Import Safety Electronic Review 24" (SAFE-i24), a system that automatically screens import-declaration documents for foods, food additives and agricultural, livestock and marine products that are repeatedly imported and classified as low risk, issuing an import confirmation automatically when submissions comply with Korean food-safety law.
Rollout & evidence — SAFE-i24 was piloted between November 2022 and September 2023, and its coverage was later extended to processed foods. A survey conducted in April 2024 of 273 importers using the system found that about 95% rated the automatic screening positively. In March 2026, the OECD's Observatory of Public Sector Innovation selected SAFE-i24 as a government-innovation case study, and MFDS said it intends to keep expanding the system's use of digitalisation and AI.
Caveat — The strongest published evidence to date is a single importer-satisfaction survey rather than independent measurement of error rates, fraud caught, or processing-time savings, so the system's operational impact is not yet as rigorously documented as its adoption.

Read the full analysis: https://www.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2026033010193394829

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful