Showing posts with label FDA Warning Letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FDA Warning Letters. Show all posts

Sunday, February 24, 2013

FDA Targets Website Search Results in Warning Letter

From ePharm Rx blog--

In case you missed it, an FDA warning letter issued late January addressed the issue of how website searches associate keyword searches with search results. In other words, when a visitor to a compnay's website searches the website for a certain condition such as cancer or diabetes, if a product name displays in the results, then this is an implication that the product treats that condition. According to FDA, the company that owns the website can be liable for this association.

The letter was issued to “MDR Fitness Corp,” a vitamin and supplements company that, according to its website, applies “the latest discoveries about nutrients and how they benefit the human body.” MDR, by the way, stands for “Medical Doctors Research.” The warning letter cited additional problems such as a failed facility inspection, the promotion of supplements for conditions which cause the products to be drugs, and overstated personal testimonials. 

Buried in the letter – but highlighted by this article from Forbes– was this information:
“ … typing the key word “cancer” or “diabetes” into your product search field located on your website brings up your product lists to include Fitness tabs for Men, Longevit – E and others, implying your products are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of such diseases. Your products are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced uses, and therefore, the products are “new drugs …”

Continue reading here

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Friday, February 8, 2013

What the FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Website Looks like Now; But You Still won't Find VET (Veteriniary Enterprises of Tomorrow) Warrning Letter on This Page


Pharmacy Compounding

Pharmacy compounding is a practice in which a licensed pharmacist combines, mixes, or alters ingredients in response to a prescription to create a medication tailored to the medical needs of an individual patient.
It's also a practice that is under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because of instances in which medications, primarily injectable medications that are intended to be sterile, have endangered public health.
Pharmacy compounding can serve an important public health need if a patient cannot be treated with an FDA-approved medication. For example, pharmacy compounding may occur if a patient needs a medication to be made without a certain dye because of an allergy. Or an elderly patient or a child may need a medicine in a liquid or suppository form that is not otherwise available. 

Pharmacy Compounding News


Significant Compliance Actions

Thursday, January 24, 2013

John and Nicole Santos Dairy Newman, California

John and Nicole Santos Dairy 12/20/12

  

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:    510-337-6700
FAX:             510-337-6701 
 
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
DELIVERY SIGNATURE REQUESTED
 
Our Reference: 3005341755
 
            WARNING LETTER
December 20, 2012
 
Joao (John) A. Santos, Owner
John and Nicole Santos Dairy
671 Hagerman Peak Drive
Newman, California 95360
 
Dear Mr. Santos:
 
On October 10, 11, 12, and 16, 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an investigation of your dairy operation located at 6119 Central Avenue, Turlock, California. This letter notifies you of the violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) that we found during our investigation of your operation. You can find the FD&C Act and its associated regulations on the Internet through links on FDA’s web page at www.fda.gov
 
We found that you offered for sale animals for slaughter as food that were adulterated. Under section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii), a food is deemed to be adulterated if it bears or contains a new animal drug that is unsafe under section 512 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b. Further, under section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4), a food is deemed to be adulterated if it has been held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.
 
Specifically, our investigation revealed that on or about July 5, 2012, you sold a bob veal calf, identified with back tag (b)(4), for slaughter as food. On or about July 5, 2012, (b)(4) slaughtered this animal. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of sulfamethoxazole at 1.551 parts per million (ppm) in the liver and 2.898 ppm in the muscle tissue. On or about July 16, 2012, you sold a bob veal calf, identified with back tag (b)(4), for slaughter as food. On or about July 16, 2012, (b)(4) slaughtered this animal. USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of sulfamethoxazole at 2.71 ppm in the liver and 10.124 ppm in the muscle tissue. FDA has not established a tolerance for residues of sulfamethoxazole in the edible tissues of calves intended for slaughter for veal. The presence of this drug in edible tissue from this animal causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii). 
 
Our investigation also found that you hold animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. For example, you failed to maintain complete treatment records. Food from animals held under such conditions is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4).
 
We found that you adulterated the human drug Sulfamethoxazole and Trimethoprim tablets, (b)(4) (Penicillin G Procaine) (b)(4) (Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride Injection) (b)(4) (Ceftiofur (b)(4) and (b)(4)(Pirlimycin Hydrochloride Sterile Solution) (b)(4).  Specifically, our investigation revealed that you did not use sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, penicillin G procaine, oxytetracycline, ceftiofur, and pirlimycin as directed by their approved labeling. Use of these drugs in this manner is an extralabel use; see 21 C.F.R. 530.3(a). We have enclosed a copy for your reference.
 
The extralabel use of approved animal or human drugs in animals is allowed under the FD&C Act only if the extralabel use complies with sections 512(a)(4) and (5) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4) and (5), and 21 C.F.R. Part 530, including the use must be by or on the lawful order of a licensed veterinarian within the context of a valid veterinarian/client/patient relationship. 
 
Our investigation found that you administered sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim tablets to two of your veal (bull) calves identified with back tags (b)(4) without following the route of administration or withdrawal period as prescribed by your veterinarianYour extralabel use of sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim tablets was not under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(a); your extralabel use of sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim tablets was in or on an animal feed, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(b); and your extralabel use of sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim tablets resulted in illegal residues, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(c).  
 
Our investigation found that you routinely administered penicillin G procaine injectable suspension to your dairy cows without following the indications for use, dosage, or withdrawal period as stated in the approved labeling. Your extralabel use of penicillin G procaine was not under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(a). 
 
Our investigation found that you routinely administered oxytetracycline to your lactating dairy cows without following the indications, animal class, or withdrawal period as stated in the approved labeling. Your extralabel use of oxytetracycline was not under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(a). 
 
Our investigation found that you routinely administered ceftiofur to your lactating dairy cows without following the withdrawal time as stated in the approved labeling. Your extralabel use of ceftiofur was not under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(a). 
 
Our investigation found that you routinely administered pirlimycin to your lactating dairy cows without following the meat withhold period as stated in the approved labeling. Your extralabel use of pirlimycin was not under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(a). 
 
Because your use of these drugs was not in conformance with their approved labeling, you caused the drugs to be unsafe under section 512(a) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b(a), and adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5).
 
In addition, you adulterated sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim within the meaning of section 501(a)(6) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(6), when you fed milk containing sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim tablets to your calves. Your feeding of sulfamethoxazole in this manner caused the animal feed to be unsafe within the meaning of section 512 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b. Section 512 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b and 21 C.F.R. 530.11(b) do not permit the extralabel use of medicated feeds.
 
The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations. As a producer of animals offered for use as food, you are responsible for ensuring that your overall operation and the food you distribute are in compliance with the law.
 
You should take prompt action to correct the violations described in this letter and to establish procedures to ensure that these violations do not recur. Failure to do so may result in regulatory action without further notice such as seizure and/or injunction.
 
You should notify this office in writing of the steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter. Your response should include each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.
 
Your written response should be sent to Lawton W. Lum, Director, Compliance Branch, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, San Francisco District, at 1431 Harbor Bay Parkway, Alameda, California 94502. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Compliance Officer Karen L. Robles at (916) 930-3674 extension 1114 or via e-mail at Karen.Robles@fda.hhs.gov.
 
Sincerely, 
/S/
Barbara J. Cassens
District Director
San Francisco District
U. S. Food and Drug Administration


Warning Letter to Mountian Vista Dairy Tillamoo, Oregon

Mountain Vista Dairy 12/21/12

  

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

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
 
Seattle District
Pacific Region
22215 26th Ave SE, Suite 210
Bothell, WA 98021
 
Telephone:      425-302-0340
FAX:    425-302-0402
 
 
                                                                           December 21, 2012
 
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
SIGNATURE REQUIRED
 
In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 13-08
 
John M. Ficher, Owner
Mountain Vista Dairy
8680 Sollie Smith Road
Tillamook, Oregon 97141
 
WARNING LETTER
 
Dear Mr. Ficher:
 
On October 15-18, 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an investigation of your dairy operation located at 8680 Sollie Smith Road, Tillamook, Oregon. This letter notifies you of the violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) that we found during our investigation of your operation. You can find the FD&C Act and its associated regulations on the Internet through links on FDA’s web page at www.fda.gov.
 
We found that you offered for sale an animal for slaughter as food that was adulterated. Under section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii), a food is deemed to be adulterated if it bears or contains a new animal drug that is unsafe under section 512 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360b. Further, under section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4), a food is deemed to be adulterated if it has been held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.
 
Specifically, our investigation revealed that on or about May 9, 2012, you sold a dairy cow, identified with back tag #(b)(4) (ear tag #(b)(4) yellow), for slaughter as food. On or about May 10, 2012, (b)(4), located at (b)(4), slaughtered this animal. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from this animal identified the presence of 0.25 parts per million (ppm) of penicillin in the kidney tissue. FDA has established a tolerance of 0.05 ppm for residues of penicillin in the uncooked edible tissues of cattle as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), 556.510 (21 C.F.R. 556.510). The presence of this drug in edible tissue from this animal in this amount causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii). 
 
Our investigation also found that you hold animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues are likely to enter the food supply. For example, you failed to maintain complete treatment records and a drug inventory system. In addition, expired veterinary drugs were observed in your supply cabinet, available for use on your livestock. Food from animals held under such conditions is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4).
 
We also found that you adulterated the new animal drug Pro-Pen-G® Injection (Penicillin G Procaine Injectable Suspension, NADA #065-505). Specifically, our investigation revealed that you did not use Pro-Pen-G® Injection as directed by its approved labeling. Use of this drug in this manner is an extralabel use. See 21 C.F.R. 530.3(a).
 
The extralabel use of approved animal or human drugs in animals is allowed under the FD&C Act only if the extralabel use complies with sections 512(a)(4) and (5) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360b(a)(4) and (5), and 21 C.F.R. Part 530, including that the use must be by or on the lawful order of a licensed veterinarian within the context of a valid veterinarian/client/patient relationship.
 
Our investigation found that you administered Pro-Pen-G® Injection (Penicillin G Procaine Injectable Suspension, NADA #065-505) to your dairy cow without following the dose and amount per injection site as stated in the approved labeling. Your extralabel use of Pro-Pen-G® Injection was not under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(a). Because your use of this drug was not in conformance with its approved labeling and did not comply with 21 C.F.R. Part 530, you caused the drug to be unsafe under section 512(a) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360b(a), and adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(5).
 
The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations. As a producer of animals offered for use as food, you are responsible for ensuring that your overall operation and the food you distribute is in compliance with the law.
 
You should take prompt action to correct the violations described in this letter and to establish procedures to ensure that these violations do not recur. Failure to do so may result in regulatory action without further notice such as seizure and/or injunction.
 
FDA acknowledges your firm’s written response, received following our inspection. A letter was received by our office on November 5, 2012, addressing the observations made during the inspection we conducted at your firm. Although your letter indicates that your firm has taken steps to address our observations, your response is partially adequate. Your response states that you will be administering penicillin in multiple injection sites; however, your response does not address if you will be administering the dosage specified by the drug’s approved labeling. Your response states that you have implemented new drug treatment records; however, your response did not address how your firm will ensure proper implementation of these records by your employees.
 
You should notify this office in writing of the steps you have taken to bring your firm into compliance with the law within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter. Your response should include each step that has been taken or will be taken to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. If corrective action cannot be completed within fifteen (15) working days of receiving this letter, state the reason for the delay and the time frame within which the corrections will be completed. Please include copies of any available documentation demonstrating that corrections have been made.
 
Your written response should be sent to Jessica L. Kocian, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 22215 26th Ave SE, Suite 210, Bothell, Washington 98021. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Compliance Officer Jessica Kocian at 425-302-0444. 
 
                                                                          
Sincerely,
/S/ 
Charles M. Breen
District Director
 
cc: Dr. Brad LeaMaster, State Veterinarian
      Oregon State Department of Agriculture
      Animal Health and Identification Division
      635 Capitol Street NE
      Salem, Oregon 97310-2532
 
      (b)(4) DVM