Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations
Edgar Martin Dairy 29-Dec-05
Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
Minneapolis District Office
December 29, 2005
Refer to MIN 06-18
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Edgar M. Martin
Edgar Martin Dairy
43434 320th Street
Brooten, MN 56316-9700
Dear Mr. Martin:
In an inspection conducted on October 6, 2005, an investigator from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, acting on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), confirmed that you offered an animal for sale for slaughter as food that was adulterated under sections 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)] and 402(a)(4) [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The inspection also revealed that you caused the new animal drugs neomycin and procaine penicillin G to become adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)] and unsafe under section 512 of the Act [21 U.S.C. 360b]. You can find the Act and its associated regulations on the Internet through links on the FDA's web page at www.fda.gov.
On or about August 9, 2005, you consigned a dairy cow, identified with back tag 8058, for slaughter as food at [redacted]. On or about August 10, 2005, this animal was slaughtered at Long Prairie Packing [redacted]. United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from that animal identified the presence of 443.39 ppm neomycin in kidney tissue. A tolerance of 7.2 pprn in kidney has been established for residues of neomycin in the edible tissues of cattle as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 556.430 (21 CFR 556.430). The presence of this drug in excess of the tolerance set forth in 21 CFR 556 .430 in edible tissue from this animal causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the 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. You lack an adequate system to ensure that animals medicated by you have been withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit depletion of potentially hazardous residues of drugs from edible tissues . For example, you failed to maintain treatment records. Food from animals held under such conditions is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)].
In addition, you adulterated neomycin and procaine penicillin G within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)] when you failed to use these drugs in conformance with their approved labeling. "Extralabel use," i.e., the actual or intended use of a drug in an animal in a manner that is not in accordance with the approved labeling, is only permitted if the use is by or on the lawful order of a licensed veterinarian within the context of a valid veterinarian/client/patient relationship. The extralabel use of approved veterinary or human drugs must comply with sections 512(a)(4) and 512(a)(5) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(4) and 360b(a)(5)] and 21 CFR Part 530. Our investigation found that your extralabel use of neomycin and procaine penicillin G failed to comply with these requirements.
For example, you administered the procaine penicillin G without following the dosage level of treatment or the methods for injecting the drug set forth in the approved labeling, and you did so without the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, in violation of 21 CFR 530.11(a) . You administered neomycin without the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, also in violation of 21 CFR 530.11(a). Furthermore, your extralabel use of neomycin resulted in an illegal drug residue, in violation of 21 CFR 530.11(c). Because your extralabel use of these drugs was not in compliance with 21 CFR Part 530, the drugs were unsafe under section 512(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)] and your use caused them to be adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) of the 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 are in compliance with the law.
You should take prompt action to correct the above violations and to establish procedures whereby such 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, 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 Brian D. Garthwaite, Ph.D., Compliance Officer, at the address in the letterhead. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Dr. Garthwaite at (612) 758-7132.
W. Charles Becoat