Search Warning Letters

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Today's Temptations, Inc. 3/25/10












  

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


Public Health Service

Food and Drug Administration
 Chicago District

550 West Jackson Blvd., 15th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60661

Telephone: 312-353-5863

March 25, 2010



WARNING LETTER



CHI-05-10



CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



Mr. Al B. Filin, President

Today's Temptations, Inc.

1900 North Austin Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60639



Dear Mr. Filin:





The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected your facility located at 1900 North Austin Avenue in Chicago, IL, October 14 -26, 2009 and verified that your firm manufactures and distributes bakery products. Our review of your product labels and other evidence collected during the inspection has determined that your products are misbranded within the meaning of section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 343]. Regulations implementing the food labeling requirements of the Act are found in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 101. You can find the Act and labeling regulations on FDA's website at www.fda.gov.



Your Whole Wheat bread product is misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(r)(1)(A) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(1)(A)] because the product makes nutrient content claims but does not meet the requirements to make those claims. Under Section 403(r)(1)(A) of the Act, a claim that characterizes the level of a nutrient which is of the type required to be in the label or labeling of the food must be made in accordance with a regulation promulgated by the Secretary (or by delegation, FDA) authorizing the use of such a claim. Characterizing the level of a nutrient in food labeling of a product without complying with the specific requirements pertaining to nutrient content claims for that nutrient misbrands the product under Section 403(r)(1)(A) of the Act.



Your Whole Wheat bread product makes the following claims:



o Fat Free

o Hi-Fibre

o Sugar Free

o Only 2g Digestible Carbs



Under 21 CFR 101.62(b), to use the term "fat free," a food must contain less than 0.5 grams of fat per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) and per labeled serving. It must not contain an added ingredient that is a fat or that is generally understood to contain fat unless the ingredient statement lists the ingredient followed by an asterisk that refers to a statement indicating that the amount of fat added is insignificant. And, must either be specially processed to remove fat from the food or is labeled to disclose that fat is not usually present in the food. Your Whole Wheat bread product, however, contains canola oil which is an added ingredient generally understood to contain fat. Therefore, to use the term "fat free" in association with this product, you must indicate that the amount of fat added by canola oil is insignificant by placing an appropriate statement on the product label, in accordance with 21 CFR 101.62(b)(ii).



Under 21 CFR 101.60(c)(1), to use the term "sugar free," a food must contain less than 0.5 grams of sugars per RACC and per labeled serving. It must contain no ingredient that is a sugar or that is generally understood by consumers to contain sugars unless the listing of the ingredient in the ingredient statement is followed by an asterisk that refers to the statement below the list of ingredients, which states "add a trivial amount of sugar," "adds a negligible amount of sugar," or "adds a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar." It also must be labeled "low calorie" or "reduced calorie" or bear a relative claim of special dietary usefulness labeled in compliance with 21 CFR 101.60(b). Your product fails to meet the requirements of 21 CFR 101.60(c)(1)(iii) for the sugar free claim.



The statement "Only 2g Digestible Carbs" is an unauthorized nutrient content claim. FDA has not defined this claim for use on food products.



In addition, your Whole Wheat bread product is misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(w) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)] because the label fails to declare the presence of a major food allergen. Specifically, your product fails to declare eggs. Section 201 (qq) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321 (qq)] defines as "major food allergens" milk, egg, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans, as well as any food ingredient that contains protein derived from one of these foods, with certain limited exceptions. A food is misbranded if it is not a raw agricultural commodity and it is, or it contains an ingredient that bears or contains, a major food allergen, unless either:



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 

 

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 that 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 that appears 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)].



Your Kolaczki Cookies are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(i)(2) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(i)(2)] because they are fabricated from two or more ingredients and each ingredient is not declared on the label as described in 21 CFR 101.4(b)(2). For example:



• Your Kolaczki Cookies ingredient statement lists margarine but fails to list the multi-ingredient components of margarine. The standard of identity for margarine listed in 21 CFR 166.110(d) requires that each ingredient used in margarine be declared on the label, as required in 21 CFR Part 101.



The requirement to list these component ingredients (or "sub-ingredients") may be met by either parenthetically listing the component ingredients after the common or usual name of the main ingredient [21 CFR 101.4(b)(2)(i)], or by listing the component ingredients without listing the ingredient itself [21 CFR 101.4(b)(2)(ii)]. Under the first alternative, the component ingredients must be listed in descending order of predominance within the multi-component ingredient; and under the second alternative, the component ingredients must be listed in descending order of predominance in the finished food.



Your Whole Wheat bread, Almond Coffee Cake, Kolaczki Cookies, and Plain Pound Cake products are misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(q) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 343(q)] in that the product labels do not contain nutrition facts information in an appropriate format as defined in 21 CFR 101.9. For example:



• Kolaczki Cookies and Plain Pound Cake



o These products do not have nutrition information, and they are not exempt from the requirement to bear a Nutrition Facts panel under 21 CFR 101.9. Your firm may be eligible to file for a small business nutrition labeling exemption for products which do not provide nutrition information, nutrient information, nutrient content or health claims on the labels, labeling or advertising. In accordance with 21 CFR 101.9(j)(18), a firm may qualify for this exemption if the firm has fewer than 100 full time employees and fewer than 100,000 units of a product are being sold in the United States, provided that the product labels, labeling, and advertising do not provide nutrition information or make a nutrient content or health claim. A firm is required to file an exemption notice each year with FDA unless the firm has fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees. We have no record of your firm having filed a Small Business Nutrition Labeling Exemption Notice.



• Whole Wheat bread



o The product label fails to declare the serving size in common household measures as required by 21 CFR 101.9(b)(7).

o The product label fails to declare a statement of the amount per serving of the vitamins and minerals as described as required by 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8).

o The product label fails to include a footnote that states, "Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs ... " as required by 21 CFR 101.9(d)(9).

o The product label fails to include the grams of the sugar alcohol, malitol syrup, in accordance with 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(iii). A statement of the number of grams of sugar alcohol per serving must be declared in the nutrient label when a claim is made in reference to sugar or sugar alcohols.



• Almond Coffee Cake



o The product label fails to declare the serving size in common household measures as required by 21 CFR 101.9(b)(7).

o The nutrients are not listed in the required order in accordance with 21 CFR 101.9(c).

o The product label fails to declare a statement of the amount per serving of the vitamins and minerals as described as required by 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8).

o The product label fails to include a footnote that states, "Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs... " as required by 21 CFR 101.9(d)(9).



The above observations are not intended to provide an all-inclusive list of the violations at your facility. lt is your responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm's current good manufacturing practices. 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. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action without further notice, such as seizure or injunction.



In addition to the deviations noted above, we have the following additional comments regarding the labeling for your products:



The fiber content of your Whole Wheat bread product, as declared on its label, meets the 20 percent of the daily reference value (DRV) for fiber based on the 50 gram RACC, which is required to make a high fiber nutrient content claim under 21 CFR 101.54(b); however, because the product does not meet the criteria per labeled serving, your high fiber claim must be followed by the criteria for the claim as required by 21 CFR 101.12(g). You must state, e.g., "high fiber, 5 grams or more per serving of bread (__ piece(s)(50 grams)." See 21 CFR 101.13(p)(1).



Your Almond Coffee Cake contains an almond filling. If the almond filling is a multi-component food, you must list all sub-ingredients in accordance with 21 CFR 101.4(b)(2)(i) or 21 CFR 101.4(b)(2)(ii). In addition, your Kolaczki Cookies list assorted fillings in the ingredient statement; each filling used to manufacture your Kolaczki Cookies must be specified and all ingredients used in those fillings must be declared in the ingredient statement.



The statement of identity for your Whole Wheat bread product does not include the word "bread" as required by 21 CFR 101.3.



The net quantities of contents on your Whole Wheat bread product, Almond Coffee Cake, Kolaczki Cookies, and the Plain Pound Cake labels are not declared in accordance with the requirements in 21 CFR 101.105(j)(1) and the examples in 101.105(m)(1).



The product labels for your Almond Coffee Cake and Whole Wheat bread product fail to include hairlines to separate the text of each Nutrient and Percent Daily Value from the Nutrient and Percent Daily Value above and below it as required by 21 CFR 101.9(d)(1)(v).



Your Whole Wheat bread product label includes the statement, "Good for diabetics." FDA has not stated that a specific food is more useful than another food in the diet of a diabetic. Prior to June 1996, there was a special dietary regulation (21 CFR 105.67) that provided for the special dietary claim "may be useful in the diet of diabetics" on food product labels. In the Federal Register (FR) of June 3,1996 (61 FR 27771), the FDA revoked 21 CFR 105.67. The FDA concluded, consistent with current dietary advice, that the provisions for diabetic labeling in 21 CFR 105.67 are outdated and misleading. The agency also stated that the health claim provisions in Section 403(r) of the Act provide an adequate regulatory framework to prevent any use of the term "diabetic" that is not scientifically valid or that is misleading. Since publication of the June 3, 1996 FR announcement, we have been discouraging the marketing of foods specifically for diabetics. Therefore, we recommend you remove the language from the label of your Whole Wheat bread product.



The FDA has also determined that your facility is subject to the registration requirement in Section 415 of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 350d] and FDA's implementing regulation at 21 CFR Part 1, Subpart H. During our inspection at your facility, you were advised of this requirement. Our records indicate that, to date, your facility has not registered with FDA. The failure to register a facility as required is a prohibited act under Section 301 (dd) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 331(dd)]. Please register your facility immediately. Registration may be accomplished online at http://www.access.fda.gov. We strongly encourage the use of electronic registration because it will result in an automatic confirmation of registration and automatic issuance of a registration number. Alternatively, you may contact the FDA Industry Systems Help Desk at 1-800-216-7331 or 301-575-0156 to inquiry about mail or fax registration and related forms.



On June 11, 2009, FDA issued your firm an Untitled Letter as a result of a label review for your Whole Wheat bread product. The FDA's review of the product label found that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the Act. As of March 23, 2010, the Chicago District Office has not received any written correspondence from your firm indicating corrective actions have been implemented since the issuance of the FDA483, Inspectional Observations, on October 26, 2009.



Please notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) 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 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which the corrections will be completed.



Please send your reply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Ms. Rosemary Sexton, Compliance Officer, Food and Drug Administration located at 550 W. Jackson Blvd., 16th Floor, Chicago, IL 60661. If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Ms. Sexton at 312-596-4225 or rosemary.sexton@fda.hhs.gov.



Sincerely,

/S/

Scott J. MacIntire

District Director

-

3CPM Company Inc., 3/25/10

  

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

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 Baltimore District Office
6000 Metro Drive, Suite 101 
Baltimore, MD 21215
Telephone: (410)779-5454
FAX: (410) 779-5703

FEI: 3002900388

 

WARNING LETTER

CMS # 89144

March 25, 2010


Dr. Mark D. Noar, CEO and Chairman
3CPM, Inc.
7402 York Road #100
Towson, MD 21204-7532

Dear Dr. Noar:

During an inspection of your firm located in Towson, Maryland on September 28,2009, through November 6, 2009, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures electrogastrogram (EGG) devices. 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) 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 (C.F.R.), Part 820. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures to ensure that the design requirements relating to a device are appropriate and address the intended use of the device, including the needs of the user and patient, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(c). For example procedures for Version (b)(4) EGG machine in (b)(4) or for the upgrade made to the Research Version device in (b)(4) which included a new Research Waterload Version and a Waterload Version.

2. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for defining and documenting design output in terms that allow an adequate evaluation of conformance to design input requirements, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(d). For example:

a. When requested, design output procedures and/or requirements for the upgrade from Version (b)(4) to Version (b)(4) done by (b)(4) and for the upgrade from Version (b)(4) Research device to Versions (b)(4) Research, Research Waterload device done (b)(4) could not be provided.
b. When requested, no evidence that design outputs were established and evaluated against design inputs document (b)(4) was provided.
c. There is no record of review and approval of device labeling, including review and approval of the labeling for the Research Version (b)(4) released (b)(4) 

3. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures to ensure that formal documented reviews of the design results are planned and conducted at appropriate stages of the device's design development, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(e). For example, procedures were not established to ensure formal documented reviews of the design during the design planning process.

4. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for verifying the device design and documenting the results of the design verification, including identification of the design, method(s), the date, and the individual(s) performing the verification, as required by 21 CFR820.30(t). For example:

a. When requested, no documentation to confirm that the finished product conformed to specified requirement as stated in the (b)(4) was provided.
b. The design plan identifies what testing will be done to ensure general assembly requirements are met; however, when requested, the documentation to support testing that was performed on the following activities could not be located: (1) 'Test Type CF EGG Lead on CWE Head Stage," (2) "Test Type B on Respiration Connection" and (3) "Verify Cart - Tip Test."

5. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for validating the device design, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(g). For example:

a. When requested  no evidence to show that the validation test was performed as stated in Test Report (b)(4) was provided.
b. When requested, no evidence to support that the finished device was validated to include validation with the EGGSAS software was provided.
c. The Failure Modes Effect Analysis FMEA described in (b)(4) does not define the Average Likelihood of Occurrence (ALOO) for each value.

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

a. When requested, no procedure identifying how design changes made to the device are processed was provided.
b. When requested, no evidence that the changes made to the finished device or the research, research waterload, or waterload software versions were verified or validated to ensure that the changes are effective and did not adversely affect the finished product was provided.
c. When requested, no evidence to support the device software update from Research Version (b)(4) to Version (b)(4) was verified to meet design requirements as stated in the (b)(4) was provided.
d. When requested, no documentation to support that the changes to EGGSAS software were verified to demonstrate the functionality was provided. The EGGSAS version (b)(4) software is the  software  component for the EGG machine that is used in conjunction with the (b)(4) to provide a diagnosis of gastric motility disorders.

7. Failure to document all activities required under 21 CFR 820.100, Corrective and Preventive 21 CFR 820.100(b). For example:

a. Email correspondence between the dates of November 26, 2008 and December 1, 2008 discuss an install program for the 3CPM companion program, known as the Reader, and problems encountered during testing. The test methods are not identified, and the software used to test the program is not identified. The final email correspondence refers to a "problem" identified in the folder the program is run on. The program is not identified, nor is a resolution documented. 
b. Email correspondence dated December 2, 2008 discuss the 3CPM companion programs known as the Reader and (b)(4) programs corrupting the EGGSAS software making the EGGSAS software "disappear" when the (b)(4) program was uninstalled. The emails discuss testing the Reader and (b)(4) programs to ensure the problem was fixed; however, no resolution is identified and/or documented.
c. Email correspondence between the dates of February 1 and February 3, 2009 discuss changes, upgrades, procedure/policy and software testing; however, the results of the testing or test methods are not documented.
d. Email correspondence on May 18 and 19, 2009 discuss the uninstall of EGGSAS software version (b)(4) on a Windows 98 notebook, which resulted in the uninstall of other programs on the customer's computer (not related to 3CPM). In an email from Mr. M. Ted Braid (CIO, 3CPM), he stated support is not offered for older versions of the EGGSAS software; however, an exception would be made in this instance. The email ended with the offer to purchase new equipment to support the older version of software or to purchase the newer version of software. The email was closed, and no date is provided. There is no evidence of an investigation.

8. Failure to establish and maintain procedures that address the identification, documentation, evaluation, segregation, and disposition of nonconforming product, as required by 21 CFR 820.90(a). For example, there is no defined method of identifying, documenting and evaluating nonconforming product and any investigation associated with the nonconforming product. Specifically, email correspondence between the dates of June 29 and July 6, 2009, indicate the need to correct a problem with the data entry field on the waterload software version; however, no further documentation is available addressing this issue.

9. Failure to validate computer software for its intended use according to an established protocol when computers or automated data processing systems are used as part of production or the quality system, as required by 21 CFR 820.70(i). For example, when requested no validation documentation to support the commercial off-the-shelf program (b)(4) used to capture complaints, returned merchandise and service requests was provided.

10. Failure to establish and maintain adequate acceptance procedures, where appropriate, to ensure that specified requirements for in-process product and finished device acceptance are met as required by 21 CFR 820.80(c) and (d). Finished device acceptance includes ensuring that each product, run, lot, or batch of finished devices meets acceptance criteria. For example, electrogastrograrn machine components and finished product acceptance and/or rejection criteria have not been established.

11. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for identifying product during all stages of receipt,production, distribution, and installation to prevent mixups, as required by 21 CFR 820.60. For example, there is no procedure or mechanism for identifying individual equipment components, software or finished device. Specifically, there are three versions of the EGGSAS software all identified as Version (b)(4): (1) a waterload version; (2) a research - waterload version; and (3) a research version.

12. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for control and distribution of finished devices to ensure that only those devices approved for release are distributed and to maintain distribution records which include or refer to the location of (1) the name and address of the initial consignee; (2) the identification and quantity of devices shipped; (3) the date shipped; and (4) any control number(s) used, as required by 21 CFR 820.160. For example, when requested, procedures for controlling and distributing finished devices and distribution records for products released into distribution for 2008 and 2009 were not provided.

13. Failure to establish and maintain device master records (DMR's), as required by 21 CFR 820.181. For example, when requested, no DMR for the EGGSAS software used in the three 3CPM Electrogastrogram versions: Research, Research Waterload, and Waterload was provided.

14. Failure to maintain adequate device master records that include, or refer to the location of, device specifications including appropriate drawings, composition, formulation, component specifications, and software specifications, as required by 21 CFR 820.181(a). For example, when requested, the software specifications for the software update that occurred in (b)(4) or the software updates that occurred between (b)(4) could not be located.

15. Failure to establish and maintain procedures to ensure that device history records (DHR) for each batch, lot, or unit are maintained to demonstrate that the device is manufactured in accordance with the device master record and the requirements of 21 CFR Part 820, as required by 21 CFR 810.184. For example:

a. When requested, no DHR for the research, research-waterload or the waterload software Version (b)(4) tested and distributed to customers was provided.
b. There is no record of device labeling.
c. Changes to the software are not documented in the Design History File and are not tracked and/or verified. There is no documentation listing the number and/or type of changes that were made.

16. Failure to establish and maintain procedures to control all documents that are required by 21 CFR Part 820, as required by 21 CFR 820.40. The procedures should designate an individual(s) to review for adequacy and approve prior to issuance all documents established to meet the requirements of 21 CFR Part 820. For example:

a. When requested, no procedures which address document control were provided.
b. The following unapproved documents are maintained in the Device History File, stored electronically, or are contract/(b)(4) agreements:

1. The 3CPM Company, Inc. (b)(4) with no review or approval signatures.
2. The Design Plan entitled (b)(4) undated with no review or approval signatures.
3. SOP number (b)(4) no approval signature.
4. Document number (b)(4) undated with no approval signature.
5. Document number (b)(4) dated Ma 14, 2003 with no approval signature.
6. Test Report (b)(4) written by the firm's independent consultant, but not approved by 3CPM management
7. (b)(4) but does not have a review or approval signature.
8. (b)(4) but does not have a review or approval signature. 
9. (b)(4) but does not have a review or approval signature.
10. (b)(4) undated with no approval signature
11. (b)(4) undated with no approval signature
12. (b)(4) undated with no approval signature
13. (b)(4) but updated.
14. "CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT" between 3CPM Company, Inc (b)(4) undated with no signatures.

17. Failure of management with executive responsibility to review the suitability and effectiveness of the quality system at defined intervals and with sufficient frequency according to established of 21 CFR Part 820 and the manufacturer's established quality policy and objectives, as required by 21 CFR 820.20(c). For example, when requested no documentation to support management reviews are conducted was provided.

18. Failure to establish procedures for quality audits and conduct such audits to assure that the quality system is in compliance with the established quality system requirements and to determine the effectiveness of the quality system, as required by 21 CFR 820.22. For example, when requested, procedures for quality audits were not provided. Quality audits have not been conducted since 2003.

19. Failure to establish procedures for identifying training needs and ensure that all personnel are trained to adequately perform their assigned responsibilities, as required by 21 CFR 820.25(b). For example, when requested, documentation that training was performed according to the design plan for the upgraded device from Version (b)(4) to Version (b)(4) could not be located. A troubleshooting chart was scheduled to be created; however, it could not be located; and training materials and a training class were to be provided/conducted on Customer Service and Sales/Marketing according to the Design Plan; however, the training materials or documentation that the training was conducted could not be located.

Our inspection also revealed that your electrogastrogram 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 C.F.R. Part 803 Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulation. Significant deviations include, but are not limited to, the following:

Failure or refusal 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 803 - Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulation. For example, when requested procedures for MDR reportable events were not provided.

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. 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 (15) 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 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which the corrections will be completed.

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.

Please send your reply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Anne Aberdeen, Compliance Officer, 6000 Metro Drive, Suite 101, Baltimore, MD 21215. If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Ms. Aberdeen at (410) 779-5134.

Sincerely,

/s/

Evelyn Bonnin
District Director
Baltimore District
 

-

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Roxy Trading Inc 3/24/10

 

 

 












  

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


Public Health Service

Food and Drug Administration
 Los Angeles District

Pacific Region

19701 Fairchild

Irvine, CA 92612-2506

Telephone: 949-608-2900

FAX: 949-608-4415

WARNING LETTER

 

CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

W/L 11-10

 

March 24, 2010

 

Mr. Sieng U. Saetang, President/Owner

Roxy Trading Inc.

389 Humane Way.

Pomona, CA 91768

Dear Mr. Saetang:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) detained your product, Sweet Plait Biscuits which was offered for import into the United States. On July 22, 2008, your company, Roxy Trading, located at 1388 W. Foothill Blvd, Azusa, CA 91702 offered for import into the United States various food articles including (b)(4) cartons of Sweet Plait Biscuits under entry number 8800070467-1. This entry was sampled by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on August 21, 2008 and found to be adulterated with Rhodamine B (formerly known as D&C Red 19), a suspected carcinogen and non-permitted color additive for food. The product was initially detained and subsequently refused by FDA on December 1, 2008 pursuant to Sections 402 (c) [21 U.S.C. § 342], 801(a)(3) [21 U.S.C. § 381] and 721 (a) [21 U.S.C. §379e] of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

On December 11, 2008 the refused Sweet Plait Biscuits were stamped as "REFUSED Dec 11, 2008 FDA LOS-DO" and processed for exportation. Per Bill of Lading No. 08-0848, dated December 18, 2008, the articles were on board to the consignee, (b)(4)

On April 2, 2009, entry number 880-0073743-2, consisting of various products including (b)(4) of Sweet Plait Biscuits was sampled by FDA. These samples disclosed the presence of Rhodamine B in this entry. The product was refused entry on June 22, 2009 due to the non-permitted food color pursuant to Section 402 (c) [21 U.S.C. § 342], Section 721 (a) [21 U.S.C. § 379e], and Section 801 (a)(3) [21 U.S.C. § 381] of the Act.

On October 21, 2009, an FDA inspection was conducted to verify that all of the (b)(4) of "FDA Refused" Sweet Plain Biscuits for entry number 880-0073538-6 were held intact by the Importer. A total of  (b)(4) were presented to the FDA investigator. (b)(4) were stamped as "REFUSED Dec 11, 2008, (b)(4) appeared to be deliberately manipulated, with areas of the master carton packaging missing. The missing sections of the master cartons appear to be the size of the FDA "REFUSED" stamp. The shipper for this entry was (b)(4) which was the same consignee for entry number 880-0073743"2 which was witnessed by FDA to have been exported on December 11, 2008. Based on the above findings we have concluded that your company re-imported into the United States adulterated products that were initially refused entry by FDA.

As the importer of record, it is your responsibility to ensure that all imported products meet all requirements of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. These responsibilities include but are not limited to introduction and distribution of products in US commerce which are not adulterated and do not contain an FDA refusal stamp that demonstrates that the products were previously examined and refused entry by FDA. Your film also has an ongoing responsibility to ensure that all shippers, import brokers, consignees and others working on your behalf follow all requirements of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

We remind you that introduction into or receipt in interstate commerce of any article that is adulterated or misbranded is a violation of the Act and may result in regulatory action without further notice such as seizure, detention without physical examination of shipments, debarment, injunction and prosecution. In addition, failure to promptly correct the deviations and prevent distribution of adulterated import products may result in requiring that future shipments be held in secured storage. Secured storage will be under the supervision and direction of the U.S. Customs Border Protection, such as in a bonded warehouse. You will be responsible for all costs incurred in secured storage.

Please respond to this letter within fifteen (15) working days from receipt of this letter, of specific steps you have taken to correct these violations, including an explanation of each step taken to prevent their recurrence and the status of the removal of all adulterated products. Your response should include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made. If corrections cannot be completed within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed.

Your written reply should be directed to:

U.S. Food & Drug Administration

Attn: Dan Solis

Director, Import Operations Branch

Los Angeles District

222 West 6th Street, Suite 700

San Pedro, CA 90731

 

If you have questions regarding any issue in this letter, you may contact CDR Susanna Choi, Investigator at 310-971-2293. 

 

Sincerely,

/s/



Alonza E. Cruse

District Director

Los Angeles District

 

CC: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Team 710 Import Specialist Team

301 East Ocean Blvd

Long Beach, CA 90802

 

Department of Health Services

Food and Drug Branch

P.O. Box 997413, MS-7602

Sacramento, CA 95899-7413

-