Search Warning Letters

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Impax Laboratories, Inc 5/31/11

  

Department of Health and Human Services' logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 

San Francisco District
Pacific Region
1431 Harbor Bay Parkway
Alameda, CA 94502-7070
Telephone: 510-769-3010
 

WARNING LETTER

Via UPS
Delivery Signature Requested
 
May 31, 2011

Chungchiang Hsu, President and CEO
Impax Laboratories, Inc.
31153 San Antonio Street
Hayward, CA 94544

Ref: FEI 3004182921

Dear Mr. Hsu:

During our December 13, 2010 through January 21, 2011 inspection of your pharmaceutical manufacturing facility, Impax Laboratories, Inc., located at 31153 San Antonio Street, Hayward, CA, investigators from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) identified significant violations of Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations for Finished Pharmaceuticals, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 210 and 211. These CGMP violations cause your drug product(s) to be adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B)] in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to, or are not operated or administered in conformity with, CGMP.

We reviewed your firm’s response dated February 11, 2011, and note it lacks sufficient corrective actions.

Specific violations observed during the inspection include, but are not limited, to the following:

1. Your firm has not established written procedures to monitor the output and to validate the performance of those manufacturing processes that may be responsible for causing variability in the characteristics of in-process material and drug product [21 C.F.R. § 211.110(a)]. For example:

a. Your firm failed to demonstrate that the manufacturing process for the Fenofibrate 200mg capsules is capable of controlling weight variations.

Between February and June 2010, your firm rejected validation lot T003011 and significant portions of validation lots T001006 and T002002 due to weight variability (low and high weight capsules). In June 2010, your firm also found weight variations in lot T006003. Lots T006002, T006003, and T006004 were manufactured under the same conditions as the rejected validation lot T003011. Portions of the identified lots were distributed although the process was not validated. Even though your firm has noted that micronized Fenofibrate powder sticking to the dosator pins during encapsulation may be a contributing factor, your firm has failed to identify a cause for these weight variations or to propose and implement corrective actions to address the discrepancies.

We acknowledge your voluntary recall of Fenofibrate capsules 200 mg, lots T0010061, T0020021, T0060021, T0060031 and T0060041, your commitment to revalidate the manufacturing process, and to continue your investigation into the capsule weight variations. However, your response is inadequate because it does not include details on what specific steps you are taking to conduct the investigation (e.g., whether your firm will perform a retrospective lot evaluation, the number of lots to be evaluated and the criteria for selection, or whether your firm will evaluate distributed lots).

b. Your firm does not have data to support the temperature range of (b)(4)°C used during the granulation process of Colestipol Hydrochloride 1g tablets (lots 601066, 601067, and 601068). During the validation studies for the granulation process, your firm established a temperature range of (b)(4)°C. Your process validation study does not provide any data to support the process range allowed in the Master Batch Records. 

In your response, your firm states that you plan to evaluate all critical process parameters and that those results will be reviewed to determine final operating ranges. Your response, however, is inadequate in that it does not address: 1) specific details about your re-validation plans and in particular, whether you will determine the root cause to clearly demonstrate a full understanding of your products and processes before initiating the re-validations, and; 2) the controls involved with issuing, reviewing, and revising manufacturing batch records to ensure validation criteria are captured and accurate. In addition, your firm has not committed to review batch records of distributed lots of Colestipol HCl 1g tablets to ensure it was manufactured within the temperature range specified in the validation studies.

2. Your firm has not thoroughly investigated the failure of a batch or any of its components to meet its specifications, whether or not the batch has already been distributed, or extended investigations to other batches of drug product that may have been associated with the specific failure or discrepancy [21 C.F.R. § 211.192].

For example, our investigators identified up to 75% of the manufactured lots of various drug products having one or more metal-contaminated tablets. These drug products include, but are not limited, to: Oxymorphone Hydrochloride extended-release tablets 10mg; Midrodrine HCl 2.5mg tablets; Fenofibrate 160mg tablets; Pseudoephedrine Sulfate ER Core 60mg tablets; Colestipol HCl1 g tablets; Pilocarpine HCl 7.5mg tablets; Nadolol/Bendroflumethiazide 40/5mg tablets, and; Pyridostigmne Bromide 60mg tablets. Your investigations were inadequate in their scope because your firm failed to evaluate all possible sources of metal contamination (i.e., review of all components for metal content and equipment maintenance logs).

The corrective actions implemented after the April 2010 inspection, as result of the metal contamination, are ineffective as evidenced by the continuing issues observed during the most recent inspection. Your firm’s criteria of only investigating lots with over (b)(4) “second pass rejects” may limit your ability to determine the root cause during your investigations. In addition, the analysis during your review of “second pass rejects” only confirms metal contamination and leads to rejection of the product if metal is visible on the exterior of the tablet. Surface inspection by itself is not a satisfactory method to confirm or dismiss metal contamination because it limits your ability to determine a root cause. 

Finally, please describe your decision making process for entire lot rejection when defects (e.g. contaminated tablets) are observed.  

This is a repeat observation from the April 2010 inspection.

The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive statement of violations that exist at your facility. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence and the occurrence of other violations. It is your responsibility to assure compliance with all requirements of federal law and FDA regulations.

You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice including, without limitation, seizure and injunction. Other federal agencies may take this Warning Letter into account when considering the award of contracts. Additionally, FDA may withhold approval of requests for export certificates, or approval of pending drug applications listing your facility, until the above violations are corrected. FDA may re-inspect to verify corrective actions have been completed.

Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, please notify this office in writing of the specific steps that you have taken to correct violations. Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations and copies of supporting documentation.  If you cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the date by which you will have completed the correction. Additionally, your response should state if you no longer manufacture or distribute products, and provide the date(s) and reason(s) you ceased production.

Please send your reply to the attention:

Darlene Almogela
Director, Compliance Branch
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
San Francisco District
1431 Harbor Bay Parkway
Alameda, CA  94502 

If you have any questions regarding any issue in this letter, please contact Carl Lee, Compliance Officer at 510-337-6737, or by fax at (510) 337-6703.

Sincerely,

/s/ 

Barbara Cassens
District Director
 

-

Butterfly Bakery Inc 5/31/11

  

Department of Health and Human Services' logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 

Waterview Corporate Center
10 Waterview Blvd., 3rd Floor
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telelphone (973) 331-4900

May 31, 2011 

WARNING LETTER
11-NWJ-19 

VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE

Brenda Issac, CEO
Butterfly Bakery Inc.
200 Clifton Blvd
Clifton, NJ 07011                                                        

Dear Ms. Issac:

On December 08, 2010, an investigator from the New Jersey District Office of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) collected samples of your No Sugar Added Blueberry Muffins (14.5 oz) product and your Sugar Free Double Chocolate Chip Muffins (14.5 oz) product. Based on our analysis of these products and review of the product labels, we have concluded that these products are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 101 (21 CFR Part 101). You can find the Act and the food labeling regulations through links on FDA’s web page at www.fda.gov.   

Your No Sugar Added Blueberry Muffins (14.5 oz) product is misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1)] in that the label is false or misleading because the amount of total fat and saturated fat are greater than 20% in excess of the value declared on the label [21 CFR 101.9(g)(5)]. The product label states that one serving (1/2 muffin-51g) contains an amount of 3.5 g total fat per serving (5% daily value) and 0.5 g saturated fat per serving (3% daily value).  However, FDA analysis found that the total fat in this product was 9.44g per serving, or 170% in excess of the total fat declared on your product’s label.  FDA’s check analysis found that the total fat in this product was 10.5g per serving, or 200% in excess of the total fat declared on your product's label. Additionally, FDA analysis found that saturated fat was 2.3g per serving (original and check analysis), or 360% in excess of the saturated fat declared on your product's label.

Your Sugar Free Double Chocolate Chip Muffins (14.5oz) product is misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(a)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1)] in that the label is false or misleading because the amount of total fat and saturated fat is greater than 20% in excess of the value declared on the label [21 CFR 101.9(g)(5)]. The product label states that one serving (1/2 muffin-51g) contains an amount of 3.5g total fat per serving (5% daily value) and an amount of 0.5g saturated fat per serving (3% daily value). However, FDA analysis found the total fat in this product was 9.64g per serving, or 175% in excess of the total fat declared on your product’s label. FDA’s check analysis found the total fat in this product was 9.95g per serving, or 184% in excess of the total fat declared on your product's label.  Additionally, FDA analysis found the saturated fat was 2.72g per serving, or 444% in excess of the saturated fat declared on your product’s label. FDA’s check analysis found the saturated fat was 1.84g per serving, or 268% in excess of the saturated fat declared on your product's label. 

Your No Sugar Added Blueberry Muffins (14.5oz) product and Sugar Free Double Chocolate Chip Muffins (14.5oz) product are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(w) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)] in that the products fail to declare all major food allergens present in the product, in particular milk, as required by Section 403(w)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)(1)].

Section 201(qq) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(qq)] defines major food allergens as:  milk, egg, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans; as well as, any food ingredient containing proteins derived from one of these foods, with the exception of highly refined oils.  A food is misbranded if it is not a raw agricultural commodity and it is, or it contains an ingredient bearing or containing, a major food allergen, unless either:

(A) The word “Contains,” followed by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived, is printed immediately after or adjacent to the list of ingredients [Section 403(w)(1)(A) of the Act; 21 U.S.C. § 343(w)(1)(A)]; or
(B) The common or usual name of the major food allergen in the list of ingredients is followed in parentheses by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived, except the name of the food source is not required when either the common or usual name of the ingredient uses the name of the food source or the name of the food source appears elsewhere in the ingredient list (unless the name of the food source appearing elsewhere in the ingredient list appears as part of the name of an ingredient that is not a major food allergen) [Section 403(w)(1)(B) of the Act; 21 U.S.C. §343(w)(1)(B)].

Specifically, your No Sugar Added Blueberry Muffins (14.5oz) product and Sugar Free Double Chocolate Chip Muffins (14.5oz) product are labeled to contain “sodium caseinate,” but they fail to declare the presence of the major food allergen “milk” on their labels.

Your No Sugar Added Blueberry Muffins (14.5oz) product and Sugar Free Double Chocolate Chip Muffins (14.5oz) product are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(q)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(q)(1)] in that the serving size and nutrition information are not based on the established reference amount customarily consumed (RACC).  The RACC established by regulation for muffins is 55 grams [21 CFR 101.12(b), Table 2, Coffee cakes, crumb cakes, … muffins...]. According to the information presented on the labels, each muffin weighs 102 grams (185% of the RACC). Under the current regulations, the serving size for a muffin that weighs 67% to less than 200% of the RACC is one muffin [21 CFR 101.9(b)(2)(i)(C)].

This letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive review of your firm’s products and their labeling.  It is your responsibility to ensure that products marketed by your firm comply with the Act and its implementing regulations. 

You should take prompt action to correct the violations described above and prevent their future recurrence. Failure to do so may result in enforcement action without further notice. Such action may include, but is not limited to, seizure or injunction. 

Please respond in writing within fifteen (15) working days from your receipt of this letter. Your response should outline the specific actions you are taking to correct these violations and to assure similar violations do not occur. You should include in your response documentation such as revised labels, or other useful information that would assist us in evaluating your corrections. If you cannot complete all corrections within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which any remaining violations will be completed.

Your reply should be sent to the following address: U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 10 Waterview Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054, Attn: Stephanie Durso, Compliance Officer. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Diana Amador-Toro
District Director, New Jersey District

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


 
 

-

Friday, May 27, 2011

Nature Pure LLC 5/27/11

 

  

Department of Health and Human Services' logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 

Cincinnati District Office
Central Region
6751 Steger Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45237-3097
Telephone: (513) 679-2700
FAX: (513) 679-2775

May 27, 2011

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

WARNING LETTER CIN-11-170434-17

Kurt Lausecker, President and Owner
Nature Pure LLC
26560 Stonns Rd.
West Mansfield, OH 43358-9662

Dear Mr. Lausecker:

On February 7 through 16, 2011, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection of your shell egg production facility located at 26560 Storms Rd., West Mansfield, OH 43358.  During the inspection, FDA collected environmental swab samples at three of your four active egg layer houses. All three of the environmental samples taken by FDA were subsequently found positive for Salmonella Enteritidis (SE).  After your firm was notified of the sample results, FDA conducted a follow-up inspection on February 28 through March 2, 2011.  During both of our inspections, we found that your facility had violations of the Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation regulation (shell egg regulation), Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 118 [21 CFR 118]. The failure to adequately implement the requirements in 21 CFR 118 causes your shell eggs to be in violation of Section 361(a) of the Public Health Service Act, (the "PHS Act"), Title 42 U.S.C. Section 264(a). In addition, your shell eggs are adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FFD&C Act"), 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4), in that they have been prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health. You can find the FFD&C Act, the PHS Act, and the shell egg regulation at www.fda.gov.

The significant violations were as follows:

1. You failed to maintain records documenting compliance with egg sampling procedures, as required under 21 CFR 118.10(a)(3)(v).  Specifically, during our February 28th through March 2nd, 2011 inspection, a representative of your firm stated that the firm had sampled 1080 eggs from each of the egg layer houses for which an environmental sample had been found positive for SE. However, your firm did not have any records documenting that a minimum of 1,000 intact eggs representative of a day's production, from each SE positive house, were collected and delivered for testing. Specifically, none of your testing documentation or shipping documentation states that appropriate numbers of eggs from your layer houses were properly sampled. 

2. You failed to test your pullet environment for SE when pullets were 14 to 16 weeks of age, as required under 21 CFR 118.4(a)(2)(i).  Specifically, during the February 7 through 16, 2011 inspection, our inspector learned from your test records that pullets at Farm 1, pullet house 7, located at 26586 St. Rt. 739, Raymond, OH 43067, were not tested for SE between 14 to 16 weeks of age. The pullet house was sampled on 01/25/2011, when the pullets were approximately 12 weeks and two days of age. We acknowledge that, during our February 28 to March 2, 2011 inspection, we found that you had revised your SE plan to specify that pullet houses be tested within the correct age range. 

3. Your written SE prevention plan lacks cleaning and disinfection procedures for use when an environmental test is positive for SE, as required under 21 CFR 118.4(d). Our investigator noted this on the FDA Form 483 that you were given at the close of the February 7 through 16, 2011 inspection.  During our inspection of February 28 to March 2, 2011, we found that your SE plan still lacked a cleaning and disinfection procedure for use when an environmental test is positive for SE. Your written response dated March 10, 2011, stated that you were in the process of establishing such a procedure, and that you would have the procedure in place no later than April 15, 2011.  FDA will verify this addition to your SE plan during the next inspection.

4. Your written SE prevention plan lacks an appropriate monitoring method for monitoring for flies, as required under 21 CFR 118.4(c)(2). The FDA Form 483 that you were given at the close of the February 7 through 16, 2011 inspection noted that your SE plan did not address fly monitoring. During our inspection of February 28 to March 2, 2011, we found that your SE plan still did not address this issue. Your written response dated March 10, 2011, stated that you were in the process of adding a fly monitoring program, and that you would have the program in place no later than April 15, 2011. FDA will verify this addition to your SE plan during the next inspection.

This letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations at your facility. You are responsible for ensuring that your shell egg production facility operates in compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations, including the FFD&C Act, the PHS Act, and the shell egg regulation. You also have a responsibility to use procedures to prevent further violations of these statutes and regulations.

You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice, such as seizure, injunction, or the initiation of administrative enforcement procedures under 21 CFR §118.12(a).

In addition to the above violations, we also have the following comment. During our February 28 to March 2, 2011 inspection, the inspector explained to you that you need to use appropriate equipment for your environmental testing method. The proper use of sampling media and equipment, such as EZ sponges containing buffer, are essential in ensuring that you obtain accurate results from the environmental sampling conducted at your firm.

During our February 28 to March 2, 2011 inspection, we also discussed whether the (b)(4) method that you were using to detect SE in environmental samples was equivalent in accuracy, precision, and sensitivity to the method entitled "Environmental Sampling and Detection of Salmonella in Poultry Houses," April 2008, as required by 21 CFR 118.8(a). In the Corrective Action Plan sent with your response dated March 10, 2011, you requested that FDA assess this question of equivalency. We have evaluated the information provided and cannot make an equivalency determination without data to support a side by side evaluation of the (b)(4) method and the method referenced in 21 CFR 118.8(a). We encourage you to submit additional documentation to FDA, so that we can determine if the (b)(4) method is equivalent in accuracy, precision, and sensitivity in detecting SE.

Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, you should notify this office in writing of the specific steps that you have taken or will take to correct the noted violations and to prevent their recurrence. Your response should include documentation of the corrective actions you have taken. If you cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which you will complete the corrections.

Your written response should be sent to Mark E. Parmon, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 6751 Steger Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45237. If you have any questions about this letter please contact Mr. Parmon at 513-679-2700 ext. 2162. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Teresa C. Thompson
District Director
Cincinnati District

 

 

 

-

Euro International Foods, Inc. 5/27/11

  

Department of Health and Human Services logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 
Seattle District
Pacific Region
22201 23rd Drive SE
Bothell, WA 98021-4421
 
Telephone:    425-486-8788
        FAX:    425-483-4996

 

 
                                                                              May 27, 2011
 
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
 
In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 11-15
 
Mr. Roman Gazaryan
President and Owner
Euro International Foods, Inc.
2880 West Valley Highway North, Suite 101
Auburn, Washington 98001
 
WARNING LETTER
 
Dear Mr. Gazaryan:
 
We inspected your seafood processing facility, located at 2880 West Valley Highway North, Suite 101,on February 25, 2011, and March 1, 2011. We found that you have serious violations of the seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulation, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 123, and the Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulation for foods, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 110 (21 CFR 123 & 110). In accordance with 21 CFR 123.6(g), failure of a processor of fish or fishery products to have and implement a HACCP plan that complies with this section or otherwise operate in accordance with the requirements of Part 123, renders the fish or fishery products adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4)]. Accordingly, your refrigerated, vacuum-packaged cold smoked mackerel is adulterated, in that it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health. You may find the Act, the seafood HACCP regulation and the Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards & Controls Guidance through links in FDA's home page at www.fda.gov.
 
Your significant violations were as follows:
 
You must conduct or have conducted for you a hazard analysis for each kind of fish and fishery product that you process to determine whether there are food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur and you must have and implement a written HACCP plan to control any food safety hazards that are reasonable likely to occur, to comply with 21 CFR 123.6(a) and (b). However your firm does not have a HACCP plan for refrigerated, vacuum-packaged cold smoked mackerel to control the food safety hazards of Clostridium botulinum toxin and scombrotoxin (histamine) formation. For additional information and guidance please refer to the Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Controls Guidance: 4th Edition (the Hazard Guide) through links in FDA's home page at www.fda.gov.
 
We may take further action if you do not promptly correct these violations. For instance, we may take further action to seize your product(s) and/or enjoin your firm from operating. You should respond in writing within fifteen (15) working days from your receipt of this letter. Your response should outline the specific things you are doing to correct these violations. You should include in your response documentation such as HACCP and verification records, or other useful information that would assist us in evaluating your corrections. If you cannot complete all corrections before you respond, you should explain the reason for your delay and state when you will correct any remaining violations.
 
This letter may not list all the violations at your facility.  You are responsible for ensuring that your processing plant operates in compliance with the Act, the seafood HACCP regulation (21 CFR Part 123) and the Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulation (21 CFR Part 110).  You also have a responsibility to use procedures to prevent further violations of the Act and all applicable regulations.
 
Please send your reply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Seattle District Office, 22201 23rd Drive SE, Bothell, Washington, 98021-4421, to the attention of Peter C. Chow, Compliance Officer. If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Mr. Chow at (425) 483-4766.
 
Sincerely,
/S/ 
Charles M. Breen
District Director
-

Columbine Specialty Products Inc. 5/27/11

  

Department of Health and Human Services logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 

Denver District Office

Building 20 – Denver Federal Center

P.O. Box 25087
Denver, Colorado 80225-0087
TELEPHONE: 303-236-3000 
 
May 27, 2011
 
            WARNING LETTER
 
 
VIA UPS PRIORITY
 
Robert McNamara, President
Columbine Specialty Products Inc.
4880 East 41st Ave.
Denver, CO  80216-440
 
Ref: # DEN-11-13-WL
 
Dear Mr. McNamara:
 
On December 1 - 10, 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection of your manufacturing facility at which you manufacture dietary supplements, located at 4880 East 41st Ave., Denver, Colorado. The inspection revealed serious violations of FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements (Dietary Supplement Regulations), Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 111 (21 CFR Part 111). At the conclusion of the inspection, you were issued a Form FDA 483, List of Inspectional Observations, which listed a number of the violations that cause your dietary supplement products to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 342(g)(1)] in that the products have been prepared, packed, or held under conditions that do not meet CGMP requirements for dietary supplements. Also, our investigators collected and reviewed samples of the labeling of your (b)(4) during the inspection of your facility. FDA concluded that this product is misbranded under section 403(e) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(e)]. You can find the Act and the Dietary Supplement Regulations through links on FDA’s home page at http://www.fda.gov.  
 
The significant violations documented during the inspection include, but are not limited to, the following:
 
Adulterated Dietary Supplements
 
1) Your firm failed to provide records to show the established product specifications for each dietary supplement you manufacture for the identity, purity, strength, and composition of the finished batch of dietary supplement, as required by 21 CFR 111.70(e). Specifically, you were not able to provide any records to show established product specifications for the identity, purity, strength, and composition of the following finished dietary supplement products, including all lots manufactured since June 25, 2010:
 
(b)(4)
 
2) Your firm failed to verify, for the finished batches of your dietary supplement products, identified below, that either every finished dietary supplement batch or a subset of the finished dietary supplement batches that you identify through a sound statistical sampling plan meet the finished product specifications for identity, purity, strength, and composition as required by 21 CFR 111.75(c). 
 
Specifically, you informed us, during the inspection, that your firm does not test any finished goods (b)(4). It is not clear whether your firm receives established specifications from your customers or whether your firm establishes specifications for your customers. Nevertheless, your firm’s status as a contract manufacturer does not exempt you from having to comply with those regulations in 21 CFR Part 111 that are directly applicable to the operations that you perform, such as ensuring that the final product meets established specifications for identity, purity, strength and composition. Our review of your records revealed that you did not establish specifications or conduct any finished product testing to ensure that specifications for identity, purity, strength, and composition were met for the following finished dietary supplement products, including all lots manufactured since June 25, 2010:
 
(b)(4)
 
We acknowledge the corrective actions you have identified in your response letter, dated February 1, 2011. Your response under observation 2 appears to indicate that you are taking steps towards establishing specifications and implementing a finished product testing program; however, your response is inadequate because you did not provide supporting documentation with your response to demonstrate the steps you took towards establishing finished product specifications and implementing a finished product testing program. Your response, also, does not include documentation of established specifications for the dietary supplement products you manufactured and documentation of finished product testing. In addition, in your response letter, under observation 2, you stated the adequacy of the in-process blend step will be verified by testing for (b)(4), but these tests do not meet the requirements, which require you to verify that your finished batch of dietary supplement meets product specifications for identity, purity, strength, and composition. However, you may exempt one or more product specifications from the verification requirements under circumstances set forth in 21 CFR 111.75(d)(1). For any such exemption, you must document why, for example, any component and in-process testing, examination, or monitoring, and any other information, will ensure that such exempted product specification is met without verification through periodic testing of the finished batch. 
  
3) Your firm failed to make and keep records of the established component specifications, as required by 21 CFR 111.95(b)(1), to show that component specifications were established to ensure that the specifications for the identity, purity, strength, and composition of the dietary supplements manufactured using the components are met, as required by 21 CFR 111.70(b)(1) and (b)(2).
 
Specifically, your firm used the following components to manufacture your dietary supplement products: (b)(4), but you failed to provide records showing the established component specifications for each of these components.
 
We acknowledge the corrective actions you have identified in your response letter, dated February 1, 2011, under observation 3. However, your response is inadequate in that it did not address your commitment to establish component and finished product specifications to ensure that specifications for the identity, purity, strength, and composition of the component and dietary supplements manufactured at your facility are met. Further, you provided no documentation to show that these specifications were established. Your response also did not indicate whether you would establish limits on any types of contaminants that may adulterate or may lead to adulteration of a finished batch of dietary supplement to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement. 
 
4) Your firm failed to include the following information in your master manufacturing records (MMR):
 
a) A statement of theoretical yield of a manufactured dietary supplement expected at each point, step, or stage of the manufacturing process where control is needed to  ensure the quality of the dietary supplement, and the expected yield when you finished manufacturing the dietary supplement, including the maximum and minimum  percentages of theoretical yield beyond which a deviation investigation of a batch is necessary and material review is conducted and disposition decision is made for (b)(4) brand dietary supplement products, as required by 21 CFR 111.210(f). Specifically, your MMRs for the dietary supplement products you manufacture failed to include this information. A statement of theoretical yield is necessary at each such point, step, or stage, where control is needed to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement, and the expected yield of the finished dietary supplement so that you will know whether  the manufacturing process is proceeding as expected or whether something is wrong.
 
b) A description of packaging and a representative label, or cross-reference to the physical location of the actual or representative label for (b)(4) brand dietary supplement product varieties, as required by 21 CFR 111.210(g). Specifically, your MMRs for the dietary supplement products you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
c) Specifications for each point, step, or stage in the manufacturing process of your (b)(4) brand dietary supplement products, where control is necessary, to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement and that the dietary supplement is packaged and labeled as specified in the MMR, as required by 21 CFR 111.210(h)(1). Specifically, your MMRs for the dietary supplement products you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
d) Procedures for sampling and a cross-reference to procedures for tests or examinations in the MMRs for (b)(4) brand dietary supplement product varieties, as required by 21 CFR 111.210(h)(2). Specifically, your MMRs for the dietary supplement products you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
e) Corrective action plans for use when a specification is not met for the (b)(4) brand dietary supplement products, as required by 21 CFR 111.210(h)(5). Specifically, your MMRs for the dietary supplement products you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
We acknowledge the corrective actions you have included in your response letter, dated February 1, 2011, under observation 1. Your response indicates you are taking steps to address the deficiencies in your MMRs; however, your response is inadequate because you fail to provide documentation to demonstrate the actual changes you have made to your MMRs. 
 
5) Your batch production records (BPR) did not include complete information relating to the production and control of each batch of your (b)(4) brand dietary supplement products manufactured since June 25, 2010, as required by 21 CFR 111.255(b). Your BPR did not include the following required information:
 
a) The date and time of the maintenance, cleaning, and sanitizing of the equipment and processing lines used in producing the batch, or a cross-reference to records, such as individual equipment logs, where this information is retained, as required by 21 CFR 111.260(c). Specifically, your BPR for the dietary supplement products you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
b) A statement of the actual yield and percentage of theoretical yield at appropriate phases of processing, as required by 21 CFR 111.260(f). Specifically, your BPR for the dietary supplement products you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
c) Results of any testing or examination performed during the batch production, or a cross-reference to such results, as required by 21 CFR 111.260(h). Specifically, your BPR for the dietary supplement products you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
d) Documentation of the manufacture of the batch at the time of performance, as required by 21 CFR 111.260(j)  Specifically, the following information was not documented in your BPR at the time of performance:
 
· the date on which each step of the master manufacturing record was performed;
· the initials of the person responsible for weighing or measuring of each component used in a batch;
· the initials of the person responsible for verifying the weight or measure of each component used in the batch;
· the initials of the person responsible for adding the component to the batch; and
· the initials of the person responsible for verifying the addition of components into a batch.
 
e) Documentation at the time of performance, of packaging and labeling operations as required by 21 CFR 111.260(k). Specifically, the following information was not documented, in your BPR, at the time of performance:
 
· the unique identifier that you assigned to packaging and labels used, the quantity of the packaging and labels used;
· an actual or representative label or a cross-reference to the physical location of the actual or representative label specified in the master manufacturing record; and
· the results of any tests or examinations conducted on packaged and labeled dietary supplements (including repackaged or relabeled dietary supplements), or a cross-reference to the physical location of such results.
 
f) Documentation at the time of performance that quality control personnel reviewed the batch production record, as required by 21 CFR 111.260(l). Specifically, your BPR for the dietary supplements you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
g) Documentation at the time of performance of any required material review and disposition decision, as required by 21 CFR 111.260(m). Specifically, your BPR for the dietary supplements you manufacture failed to include this information.
 
We acknowledge the corrective actions you have identified in your response letter, dated February 1, 2011, under observation 7. However, your response is inadequate because you did not provide documentation demonstrating the actual corrections made to your BPR. Further, you did not address the theoretical yields at appropriate phases of processing and your responses to specific areas of deficiencies did not adequately address the deficiency. For example, your response stated that you are now recording cleaning and maintenance in your Sanitation log book; however, under 21 CFR 111.260(c), cleaning activities that are documented in independent logs, must be cross-referenced in your BPR. You also did not include these logs for our review. 
 
6) Your firm  failed to establish and use appropriate controls to ensure that equipment functions in accordance with its intended use, as required by 21 CFR 111.30(e). You must document such controls, as required by 21 CFR 111.35(b)(6).  
 
Specifically, you did not establish blending times for your (b)(4) to demonstrate that components you add are mixed sufficiently to assure that your product is thoroughly mixed prior to your filling operation. Blending/mixing times must be established, checked, and adjusted as necessary during this operation of your manufacturing process.
 
 
We acknowledge the corrective actions you have identified in your response letter, dated February 1, 2011, under observation 8. However, your response is inadequate because you did not explain how (b)(4) measurements will demonstrate that the batch is mixed adequately and that all vitamins and minerals are evenly distributed throughout the liquid blend. 
7) Your firm did not confirm the identity of other components (not including dietary ingredients) and determine whether other applicable component specifications established in accordance with 21 CFR 111.70 are met by conducting appropriate tests or examinations; or relying on a certificate of analysis (COA) from the supplier of the component that you receive, provided that, among other requirements, you first qualify your component suppliers by establishing the reliability of the suppliers’ COA through confirmation of the results of the suppliers’ tests or examinations, as required by 21 CFR 111.75(a)(2)(ii)(A). 
 
Specifically, as you stated during the inspection, your firm is a contract manufacturer that produces dietary supplement products (b)(4) As stated previously, your firm’s status as a contract manufacturer does not exempt you from having to comply with those regulations in 21 CFR Part 111 that are directly applicable to the operations that you perform, such as qualifying each supplier of raw material components, not including dietary ingredients, which are used in your dietary supplement products so that you may rely on each supplier’s COA to confirm other component specifications are met, including the identity of supplied raw material components. To qualify a supplier you must establish the reliability of the supplier’s COA through confirmation of the results of the supplier’s tests or examinations. Instead of complying with this requirement, you rely on your suppliers’ COAs without qualifying any of your (b)(4) suppliers. Therefore, you cannot rely on these suppliers’ COAs to assure the identity of your raw material components. 
 
We acknowledge the corrective actions you have identified in your response letter, dated February 1, 2011, under observation 5. However, your response is inadequate because you provided no documentation of how you would qualify your suppliers. Further, in your response you state you will “set a program in place to qualify vendors;” however, you do not describe the program you intend to put into place. In addition, you state a review procedure is being implemented, but you do not state exactly what will be reviewed or when the review procedure will be in place. 
 
8) You do not collect representative samples of each unique lot of components, packaging, and labels that you use to determine whether  the components, packaging and labels meet specifications established in accordance with 21 CFR 111.70(b) and (d), and as applicable, 21 CFR 111.70(a), as required by 21 CFR 111.80(a). 
 
Specifically, you had no representative samples collected for each unique lot of components, packaging, and labels.
 
We acknowledge the corrective actions you have identified in your response letter, dated February 1, 2011, under observation 10. Your response indicated that you are now keeping samples from all incoming raw materials; however, your response is inadequate because it did not address whether you are collecting representative samples of packaging (e.g., bottles/caps) and labeling.
  
 
9)  Your firm failed to clearly identify, hold, and control under a quarantine system for appropriate disposition any dietary supplement that is rejected and unsuitable for use in manufacturing, packaging, or labeling operations, as required by 21 CFR 111.370.
 
Specifically, components, including raw materials, are not held in a quarantine system for review or approval prior to use in manufacturing.
 
10) Your firm failed to conduct at least one appropriate test or examination to verify the identity of a dietary ingredient, prior to its use, as required by 21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(i).
 
Specifically, your firm uses (b)(4), but you did not perform an identity test or examination on any of the (b)(4) dietary ingredients in the (b)(4) blend/premix and any of the (b)(4) dietary ingredients in your (b)(4) blend/premix, respectively, used in these dietary supplements.
 
We acknowledge the corrective actions you have identified in your response letter, dated February 1, 2011, under observation 4. Your response indicates that you send samples to an outside lab for identity testing; however, this response is inadequate because you did not provide supporting documentation about how your quality control unit will oversee the testing performed by the outside lab in order to ensure that the appropriate tests and examinations of incoming materials are being performed. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to confirm the identity of the dietary ingredients you intend to use in your product and determine whether these specifications are met.
 
11) Your quality control personnel failed to ensure that your manufacturing, packaging, labeling, and holding operations ensure the quality of the dietary supplements, including approving all processes, specifications, written procedures, controls, tests, and examinations, and deviations from or modifications to them that may affect the identity, purity, strength, or composition of the dietary supplement, as required by 21 CFR 111.105(a).
 
Specifically, a review of COAs and batch records found that you used several expired dietary supplement components during production. For example:
 
(b)(4).
 
12) Your firm failed to provide receiving records (including records such as COAs, suppliers’ invoices, and suppliers’ guarantees) for components, packaging and labels, as required by 21 CFR 111.180(b)(2). 
 
Specifically, you were unable to provide Certificates of Analysis (COA) for the components used in the manufacture of your dietary supplements. For example, you were not able to provide the COAs for (b)(4).
 
 
Misbranded Food
 
13) Your (b)(4) is misbranded under section 403(e) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(e)] in that the label fails to bear the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer or distributor, as required by 21 CFR 101.5.
 
The above violations are not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations in your plant. It is your responsibility to ensure that all of your products are in compliance with all requirements of the Act and implementing regulations. 
 
Failure to promptly correct the violations specified above may result in enforcement action without further notice. Enforcement action may include seizure of violative products and/or injunction against the manufacturers and distributors of violative products.
 
In addition, we have the following comment. During the inspection, you volunteered to reseal the floor of the production area and to locate and install a filter to protect against the inclusion of metal or other foreign material in your dietary supplement products. We acknowledge your voluntary corrections; however your response letter, dated February 1, 2011, did not include documentation that these corrective actions were completed.
 
We request that you notify this office in writing within 15 working days from your receipt of this letter of the current status of your corrective actions and the specific steps you have taken to correct the noted violations. Your response should include any documentation necessary to show that correction has been achieved. If you cannot complete all corrections before you respond, state the reason for the delay and the date by which you will complete the corrections.
 
Your written response should be directed to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Nancy G. Schmidt, Compliance Officer, at the above address. If you have questions about this letter, please contact Ms. Schmidt at (303) 236-3046.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
/S/ 
 
Howard E. Manresa

Acting Denver District Director

-

AngioDynamics, Inc. 5/27/11

  

Department of Health and Human Services logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 

New York District
158-15 Liberty Ave.
Jamaica, NY 11433 


May 27, 2011


WARNING LETTER NYK-2011-23


VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE


Mr. Johannes C. Keltjens
CEO/President
AngioDynamics, Inc.
14 Plaza Drive
Latham, New York 12110


Dear Mr. Keltjens:


During an inspection of your firm located in Queensbury, New York, on January 4 - 13, 2011, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined your firm manufactures hemodialysis catheters, angiographic catheters, guide-wires and accessories, image guided vascular access products, endovascular laser venous system products, and oncology products. Under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. 321(h), these products are devices because they are intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or are intended to affect the structure or function of the body.


We received responses from S. Michael Sharp, Ph.D., V.P. of Regulatory Affairs, dated January 26 and 27, 2011, concerning our investigator's observations noted on the Form FDA 483, List of Inspectional Observations, issued to you. We address these responses below, in relation to each of the noted violations. Your firm's response dated March 1, 2011, was not reviewed because it was not received within 15 business days of issuance of the FDA 483. This response may be evaluated along with any other written material you provide in response to the violations cited in this Warning Letter.


Our inspection revealed your Centros Chronic Hemodialysis Catheter Set is misbranded under section 502(t)(2) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352 (t)(2), in that your firm failed or refused to furnish material or information respecting the devices required under section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360i, and 21 CFR Part 803 - Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulation. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:


1. Failure to include all information reasonably known to your firm in your medical device report, as described in 21 CFR 803.50(b), as required by 21 CFR 803.52.
 

For example, your report, MDR #1319211-2010-00020 did not contain information known to you in Complaint #100063 involving an IRE Single Electrode Probe. Your complaint file indicates you were aware that the (b)(6) yet this information was not included in the initial MDR you submitted to FDA.


2. Failure to report to FDA no later than 30 calendar days after the day that your firm received or otherwise become aware of information, from any source that reasonably suggests a device that you market may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, as required by 21 CFR 803.50(a)(1).


For example, you became aware of the event in Complaint #100055 on February 25, 2010, involving the IRE System, but the MDR report was not submitted until March 31, 2010. We are unable to determine the adequacy of your responses because you did not provide a copy of the revised MDR procedures.


Our inspection also revealed your Centros Chronic Hemodialysis Catheter devices are misbranded under section 502(t)(2) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352(t)(2), in that your firm failed or refused to furnish material or information respecting the device that is required by or under section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360i, and 21 CFR Part 806 - Reports of Corrections and Removals regulation. Significant violations include, but are not limited to, the following:


Failure to submit a written report to FDA of any correction or removal of a device to reduce a risk to health posed by the device, as required by 21 CFR 806.10(a)(1).


For example, you failed to report a field correction as a result of three complaints associated with tunneling device breakage with respect to the Centros Chronic Hemodialysis Catheter device.


We are unable to determine the adequacy of your responses because you did not provide a copy of the revised recall procedures.


You should take prompt action to correct the violations addressed in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action being initiated by the Food and Drug Administration without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and/or civil money penalties. Also, federal agencies are advised of the issuance of all Warning Letters about devices so that they may take this information into account when considering the award of contracts.


Please notify this office in writing within 15 business days from the date you receive this letter of the specific steps you have taken to correct the noted violations, as well as an explanation of how you plan to prevent these violations, or similar violations, from occurring again. Include documentation of the corrections and/or corrective actions you have taken. If your planned corrections and/or corrective actions will occur over time, please include a timetable for implementation of these activities. If corrections and/or corrective actions cannot be completed within 15 business days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which these activities will be completed. Your response should be comprehensive and address all violations included in this Warning Letter.


In addition, FDA has noted nonconformances with regards to section 501(h) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 351(h)), which are deficiencies of the following Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements of the Quality System (QS) regulation found at 21 CFR Part 820. These nonconformities include, but are not limited to, the following:


Failure to adequately review and evaluate all complaints to determine whether an investigation is necessary, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(b).


For example, you maintain two complaint systems, the Complaint Log for complaints related to disposable devices and the Service Order Log for complaints related to hardware serviced by the firm. The complaints in the Service Order Log related to the Precision Laser 980, Precision Laser 980+, IRE Generator and Pulse Spray Injectors, are not adequately reviewed and evaluated. The 2010 Service Order Log contains 213 of 360 total service orders classified as complaints. However, there is no evidence within the Service Order Log or the complaint files that shows the two departments communicate with each other in regard to complaint evaluation and review.


We reviewed your responses and conclude that they are not adequate because they do not provide evidence to show that all complaints are being captured, reviewed, and appropriately handled.


Your response should be sent to:


Lillian C. Aveta
Compliance Officer
New York District Office, Compliance Branch
Food and Drug Administration
158-15 Liberty Ave.
Jamaica, NY 11433


If you have any questions about the content of this letter please contact Ms. Aveta at 718-662-5576.


Finally, you should know that this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations at your facility. It is your responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Inspectional Observations, Form FDA 483 (FDA 483), issued at the closeout of the inspection may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm's manufacturing and quality management systems. You should investigate and determine the causes of the violations, and take prompt actions to correct the violations and to bring your products into compliance.


Sincerely yours,
/S/
Ronald M. Pace
District Director
New York District
 

 

-

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Vipamat Technologie 5/26/11

  

Department of Health and Human Services' logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 

10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993

May 26, 2011

WARNING LETTER

VIA UPS EXPRESS
 
Mr. Vincent J. Leroy
President
VIPAMAT Technologie S.a.R.L.
Z.A. La Vraie Croix
56270 Ploemeur
FRANCE

Dear Mr. Leroy:

During an inspection of your firm located in Ploemeur, France, on January 24, 2011, through January 27, 2011, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures the HIPPOCAMPE Special Grade Wheelchair. Under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 321(h), these products are devices because they are intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or are intended to affect the structure or function of the body.

This inspection revealed that these devices are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(h) of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 351(h)), in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, packing, storage, or installation are not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements of the Quality System (QS) regulation found at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 820.  These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Failure to establish and maintain procedures to control the design of the device, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(a).

For example, your firm has not established and maintained design control procedures for its Class II device. 

2. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for the identification, documentation, validation or where appropriate verification, review, and approval of design changes prior to implementation, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(i).

For example, the seat material of your wheelchair exceeded a flammability rating limit set by the French government for reimbursement. Your firm changed the seat material without a formal process to document the design change.

3. Failure to document the results of a design review, including identification of the design, the date, and the individuals performing the review, in the design history file (the DHF), as required by 21 CFR 820.30(e). 

For example, your firm documented the design inputs for the HIPPOCAMPE Special Use Wheelchair, but did not have the appropriate review and approval by a designated individual.

4. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for implementing corrective and preventive action (CAPA), as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a).

For example, your firm has not established and maintained procedures for CAPA.  Although your firm conducted corrective actions, as a result of identified nonconformances, and documented these corrective actions, these actions were not conducted according to any established CAPA procedures.

5. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating complaints by a formally designated unit, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(a).

For example, although your firm receives and documents complaints, it does not have formal procedures for documenting, reviewing, and evaluating complaints, and does not identify a designated unit for these activities.

6. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for changes to a specification, method, process, or procedure, as required by 21 CFR 820.70(b).

For example, your firm has not established procedures for changes in production processes. When a nonconformance was identified with the drill hole in the headrest, your firm made changes to the manufacturing process (e.g., increased drill bit diameter, change drill bit (b)(4). However, these actions were not undertaken according to any written procedures and none of these activities were documented.

7. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for rework of nonconforming product, to include retesting and reevaluation of nonconforming product after rework, to ensure that the product meets its current approved specifications, and to assure that the determination that the rework and reevaluation activities, including a determination of any adverse effect on the rework upon the product, is documented in the device history record (DHR), as required by 21 CFR 820.90(b)(2).

For example, when a nonconformance is identified by your firm, occasionally rework is performed; however, no procedures exist for rework and rework activities are not documented.

8. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for finished device acceptance, as required by 21 CFR 820.80(d).

For example, although your firm has established written procedures for finished device acceptance, your firm has not established written procedures for final inspection of optional/separate device accessories produced by your firm (e.g., replacement arm rest, head rest).

9. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for the control of all applicable documents, as required by 21 CFR 820.40.

For example, modifications to procedures, specifications, and other documents were identified during the inspection; however, your firm neither has procedures for the review and approval prior to implementation, nor controls to assure that obsolete documents are appropriately removed or not used.

10. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for quality audits, as required by 21 CFR 820.22.

For example, your firm has not established and maintained procedures requiring the performance of quality audits at defined intervals. Quality audits have not been performed since your firm was established in June 2002.

11. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for management with executive responsibility to review the suitability and effectiveness of the quality system at defined intervals and with sufficient frequency according to established procedures to ensure that the quality system satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 820 and the manufacturer's established quality policy and objectives, as required by 21 CFR 820.20(c).

For example, your firm has not established procedures for conducting management reviews.

Our inspection also revealed that your HIPPOCAMPE Special Grade Wheelchair devices are misbranded under section 502(t)(2) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 352(t)(2), in that your firm failed or refused to furnish material or information respecting the device that is required by or under section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. 360i, and 21 CFR Part 803 - Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulation. Significant violations include, but are not limited to, the following:

Failure to develop, maintain, and implement written Medical Device Reporting (MDR) procedures, as required by 21 CFR 803.17.

During the inspection, your firm acknowledged that you were not aware of the requirements set forth in 21 CFR Part 803 and, therefore, you have not developed, maintained, and implemented written MDR procedures.
 
A follow-up inspection will be required to assure that corrections and/or corrective actions are adequate. 

U.S. federal agencies are advised of the issuance of all Warning Letters about devices so that they may take this information into account when considering the award of contracts. Additionally, premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the Quality System regulation deviations are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. Requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments will not be granted until the violations related to the subject devices have been corrected.

Please notify this office in writing within fifteen working days from the date you receive this letter of the specific steps you have taken to correct the noted violations, including an explanation of how you plan to prevent these violations, or similar violations, from occurring again.  Include documentation of the corrective action you have taken. If your planned corrections will occur over time, please include a timetable for implementation of those corrections. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which the corrections will be completed. Please provide a translation of documentation not in English to facilitate our review.

Your response should be sent to:

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Office of Compliance
Field Operations Branch
White Oak Building 66, Rm. 2609
10903 New Hampshire Ave.
 Silver Spring, MD  20993

Refer to Case #180412 when replying. If you have any questions about the content of this letter please contact: Mr. Matthew Krueger at (301) 796-5585 or by facsimile at (301) 847-8139.

Finally, you should know that this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations at your facility. It is your responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Inspectional Observations, Form FDA 483 (FDA 483), issued at the closeout of the inspection may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm’s manufacturing and quality assurance systems.  You should investigate and determine the causes of the violations, and take prompt actions to correct the violations and to bring your products into compliance. 

Sincerely yours,

/s/

Steven D. Silverman 
Director
Office of Compliance
Center for Devices and Radiological Health

 

 

 

 

 

-

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Lumen Soy Foods, LLC 5/25/11

  

Department of Health and Human Services' logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 

New Orleans District
404 BNA Drive
Building 200, Suite 500
Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: (615) 366-7801
FAX: (615) 366-7802

May 25, 2011

WARNING LETTER NO. 2011-NOL-16

 
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
DELIVERY SIGNATURE REQUESTED

Dana Dykstra, President
Lumen Soy Foods, LLC
16142 Harbor View Drive
Spring Lake, Michigan 49456

Dear Mr. Dykstra:

On February 22-25, 28, March 3, 4, 7, 9, and 11, 2011, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators inspected your soy protein meatless meat products processing facility, located at 409 Scott Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana. The inspection revealed serious violations of FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Human Food, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 110 (21 CFR Part 110). These conditions cause the food products held at your facility to be adulterated within the meaning of Section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4)] because they were prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health. You may find the Act and its implementing regulations through links on FDA’s Internet homepage at www.fda.gov.

The significant violations were as follows:

1.  Your firm failed to take effective measures to exclude pests from the processing areas and to protect against the contamination of food on the premises by pests, as required by 21 CFR 110.35(c). Specifically, our investigators observed the following:

• There was evidence of widespread rodent activity in, on, and near foods stored in your food processing facility, including the warehouse, packing room, and ingredient store room. For example:

o An inspection of fifty four 50 pound paper bags of textured vegetable protein, lot number 091026178, on February 23, 24, and 28, 2011, revealed two fresh appearing rodent excreta pellets under the plastic, five fresh appearing rodent excreta pellets, at least two apparent rodent hairs, and numerous fluorescing rodent urine stains on a bag located on the second layer of pallet number 2. There were six fresh appearing rodent excreta pellets; apparent rodent gnawed material; at least five apparent rodent hairs, and one large fluorescing rodent urine stain on a bag on the third layer of pallet number 2.

o One live rodent in a rat trap was observed on March 9, 2011, between two pallets of textured vegetable protein located in the warehouse approximately six feet east and six feet south of the west end of the north wall that is adjacent to the tool room.

o An inspection of two 50 pound bags of pepperoni seasoning in the packing room on February 24 and 25, 2011, revealed one bag had multiple fluorescing rodent urine stains.

o An inspection of three 44 pound bags of soy isolate in the packing room on February 24 and 25, 2011, revealed at least 20 rodent hairs and one fluorescing rodent urine stain.

o At least 14 fresh appearing rodent excreta pellets were observed on February 24 and 25, 2011, behind the pallet rack on the south wall of the packing room.
 
o Ten fresh appearing rodent excreta pellets and one dead roach were observed on February 25, 2011, behind a green tote containing carob flavor and beneath a packing table along the center of the south wall of the ingredient room.

FDA’s laboratory tests of samples taken from the warehouse, packing room, ingredient room, and a lot of textured vegetable protein confirmed the findings of rodent excreta pellets, rodent hair, and rodent urine stained and gnawed packaging throughout your facility.

2.  Your firm failed to provide, where necessary, adequate screening or other protection against pests, as required by 21 CFR 110.20(b)(7).  Specifically, our investigators observed the following:

• There was an approximately ½” x 5’ gap beneath the roll down door on the northwest wall of the warehouse extending from the west side to the center of the door leading outside of the facility. This door was approximately 10 feet from pallets of textured vegetable protein.

• There were two openings along the top of the roll down door on the northwest wall of the warehouse leading outside of the facility. The gap along the west end was approximately ¾” x 12” wide and the other gap was approximately 1 ½’x 2’ wide.

• There was an approximately 1” x 12” opening beneath the roll down door on the southwest wall of the warehouse leading outside of the facility and approximately 20 feet south of pallets of textured vegetable protein.

• There was a 1” x 1½’ opening beneath the roll down door on the southwest wall of the warehouse which leads directly outdoors.

• There were two unscreened vents in the ceiling of the warehouse which were approximately 10’ and 30’ from the east wall, respectively. The vent nearest the east wall was above a pallet containing 30 paper bags of textured vegetable protein, lot number 101251062.

• There was one 2” x 2” hole in the southeast corner of the warehouse which was approximately 18” from a pallet containing 30 brown paper bags of textured vegetable protein.

The above listed violations are not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deficiencies in your facility. It is your responsibility to ensure your facility is in compliance with applicable statutes enforced by FDA. Failure to promptly correct and prevent the recurrence of these violations may result in regulatory action without further notice, such as a seizure and/or injunction. 

At the conclusion of the inspection, FDA investigators presented to Mr. Alex F. Cuevas, General Manager, a FORM FDA 483 (FDA 483), Inspectional Observations, dated March 11, 2011. We acknowledge your firm’s voluntary corrective actions taken in response to the insanitary conditions brought to your firm’s attention. We note, on March 4, 2011, your firm, under the supervision of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH), voluntarily destroyed numerous containers of ingredients, packaging, and finished food products which had been seized by LDHH on February 22, 2011, and had been stored throughout your facility. We also acknowledge the written response to the FDA 483 of Mr. David Masciarelli, COO, dated March 15, 2011, stating all known potential points of entry were sealed. However, your firm’s response is inadequate because you did not include documentation of your corrective actions. The adequacy of the corrective actions submitted will be further assessed at our next inspection.

Please respond in writing within 15 working days of your receipt of this letter outlining the additional steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law, including steps taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. You should include in your response documentation, such as written procedures, and other useful information to assist us in further evaluating your corrective actions. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, we expect you to explain the reason for the delay and state when the remaining violations will be corrected.

Please send your reply to the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Mark W. Rivero, at the address above.  If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Mr. Rivero at (504) 219-8818, extension 103.

Sincerely,

/s/

Philip S. Campbell
 Acting District Director
 New Orleans District

 

-

Ethos Environmental Inc dba Regeneca International Inc 5/25/11

  

Department of Health and Human Services logoDepartment of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 Los Angeles District
19701 Fairchild
Irvine, California 92612-2506
Telephone (949) 608-2900
Fax          (949) 608-4415
 
WARNING LETTER
 
 
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
 
 
May 25, 2011                                                                                                             W/L 44-11
 
Adam Vincent Gilmer, President and Co-Founder
Ethos Environmental, Inc. (d.b.a. Regeneca International, Inc.)
One Technology Drive
Suite C515
Irvine, CA 92618
 
Dear Mr. Gilmer:
 
This letter concerns your firm’s marketing and distribution of the product “Regenerect.”  Laboratory analyses conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that multiple lots of Regenerect contain sulfoaildenafil, which is a phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE-5) inhibitor and an analogue of sildenafil.[1]  Sildenafil is the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Viagra, an FDA-approved drug for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). As described below, your marketing and distribution of Regenerect violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). 
 
Regenerect is labeled as a dietary supplement. However, Regenerect’s labeling statements make clear that Regenerect is a drug, as defined by section 201(g)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)], because Regenerect is intended to prevent, treat, or cure disease conditions and/or affect the structure or function of the body. Labeling statements documenting the intended use of Regenerect, include, but are not limited to, the following:
  • “[A]n alternative to chemical erectile stimulants including products like Viagra*, Cialis*, Levitra* and other pharmaceutical drugs in the category.”
  • “Regenerect is an erectile stimulant that increases the size and duration of erections.”
  • “Natural Male Erectile Stimulant”
  • “Drug-free blend of natural, herbal ingredients that enhance and support sexual response.”
  • “Better Than Viagra”
Under section 201(g)(1) of the Act (last sentence), the structure/functions claims permitted for dietary supplements must be made in accordance with section 403(r)(6) of the Act [21 U.S.C. §343(r)(6)]. However, the structure/function claims made for Regenerect do not conform to section 403(r)(6). Therefore, Regenerect is subject to regulation as a drug. Section 403(r)(6) authorizes claims that describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function of the body or that characterize the way in which a nutrient or dietary ingredient maintains the structure or function of the body. The male enhancement structure/function claims made for Regenerect do not describe the effects of a nutrients or dietary ingredients in the product. Rather, the structure/function claims are clearly made for the product as it relates to its sulfoaildenafil content. Sulfoaildenafil is not a nutrient or a dietary ingredient, as defined in section 201(ff)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(1)], but is a synthetic active pharmaceutical ingredient. For all of these reasons, Regenerect is a drug within the meaning of section 201(g)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)].
 
Moreover, Regenerect is a new drug, as defined by section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(p)], because it is not generally recognized as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in their labeling. Under sections 301(d) and 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a)], a new drug may not be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce unless an FDA-approved application is in effect for it. Your marketing and distribution of Regenerect without such an approved application violates these provisions of the Act.
 
Furthermore, Regenerect is a “prescription drug” as defined at section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 353(b)(1)(A)], because, in light of its toxicity or other potentiality for harmful effect, or the method of its use, or the collateral measures necessary to its use, Regenerect is not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer it. Regenerect contains sulfoaildenafil, a PDE-5 inhibitor. Indeed, all PDE-5 inhibitors which have been approved for marketing by FDA are limited by an approved new drug application to use under the professional supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs. Regenerect, however, is labeled and sold as a non-prescription product.
 
According to section 502(f)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)], a drug is misbranded if, among other things, it fails to bear adequate directions for its intended use(s). “Adequate directions for use” means directions under which a layman can use a drug safely and for the purposes for which it is intended (21 C.F.R. § 201.5).  Prescription drugs can only be used safely at the direction and under the supervision of a licensed practitioner. Therefore, it is impossible to write “adequate directions for use” for prescription drugs. As such, the labeling of Regenerect fails to bear adequate directions for its intended use. Regenerect is not exempt from the requirement that its labeling bear adequate directions for use under 21 C.F.R. §§ 201.100(c)(2) and 201.115 because no FDA-approved application is in effect for Regenerect. For these reasons, Regenerect is misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)].
 
Additionally, under section 502(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 352(a)], a drug is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Section 201(n) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(n)], provides that, in determining whether an article’s labeling or advertising “is misleading, there shall be taken into account . . . not only representations made or suggested . . . but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising fails to reveal facts material in light of such representations . . .” The labeling of Regenerect does not declare that it contains the PDE-5 inhibitor, sulfoaildenafil. The undeclared PDE-5 inhibitor in Regenerect may pose serious health risks because consumers with underlying medical issues may take the product without knowing that it can cause serious harm or interact in dangerous ways with other drugs they may be taking. For example, consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates.  PDE-5 inhibitors may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and can lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.  Further, consumers who have been advised against taking PDE-5 inhibitors because of comorbidities or the potential drug interactions may seek products like Regenerect because it is marketed as not containing the active ingredients in approved ED drugs. The failure to disclose the presence of sulfoaildenafil renders your product’s labeling false and misleading. Regenerect is, therefore, misbranded under Section 502(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 352(a)]. 
 
The undeclared PDE-5 inhibitor contained in Regenerect also causes it to be misbranded under section 502(f)(2) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(2)], because the labeling lacks adequate warnings for the protection of users. As previously noted, there is potential for adverse events associated with the use of Regenerect, particularly since someone who takes it would be unaware of the presence of the PDE-5 inhibitor, sulfoaildenafil. For example, patients who take nitrates and consume Regenerect may be at risk of life-threatening hypotension. Consequently, your product, Regenerect, is misbranded under sections 502(f)(2) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(2)].
 
The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of this misbranded product violates section 301(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 331(a)].
 
The issues and violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive statement of violations that exist in connection with your product.  You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence as well as the occurrence of other violations. It is your responsibility to ensure that your firm, and any drug or dietary supplement product manufactured or distributed by you or your firm, comply with all requirements of federal law and FDA regulations.  
 
You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice including, without limitation, seizure, injunction, and/or prosecution as the Act authorizes under sections 302 and 304 of the Act [21 U.S.C. §§ 332 and 334]. In addition, there is criminal liability for all violations of the prohibited acts described in section 301 of the Act [21 U.S.C. §331]. Other federal agencies may take this Warning Letter into account when considering the award of contracts. Additionally, FDA may withhold approval of requests for export certificates or approval of pending new drug applications listing your facility as a manufacturer until the above violations are corrected. 
 
Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, please notify this office in writing of the specific steps that you have taken to correct violations.  Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation.  If you cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which you will complete the correction. You can find guidance and information for the regulated industry regarding regulations for drug products through links at FDA’s website at http://www.fda.gov/oc/industry.
 
 
Your response should be sent to:
 
Blake Bevill
Director, Compliance Branch
Food and Drug Administration
Los Angeles District Office
19701 Fairchild
Irvine, CA   92612
 
 
 
Sincerely,
/S
Alonza E. Cruse
District Director
 
Cc:     
Ester S. Mark, M.D.
23521 Paseo De Valencia
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
 
Medical Board of California
2005 Evergreen Street, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95815
 
California Department of Public Health
Food and Drug Branch
1500 Capitol Avenue, MS-7602
Sacramento, CA   95899-7413
 

 


[1] In April 28, 2011, your firm conducted a voluntary recall of specific lots of “Regenerect™” after FDA found that the product contained sulfoaildenafil.

 

-