Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations
Van Dyk Dairy #1 12-Mar-08
Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
March 12, 2008
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 08-12
Richard Van Dyk, Owner
Van Dyk Dairy #1
270 North 500 West
Jerome, Idaho 83338
Dear Mr. Van Dyk:
An inspection of your dairy operation located at 218 North 500 West, Jerome, Idaho, conducted by a representative of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on January 2 and 3, 2008, 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 drug, sulfamethazine, to become unsafe under section 512(a) [21 U.S.C. §360b(a)] of the Act and adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) [21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(5)]of the Act. 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 October 12, 2007, you sold a dairy cow, identified with Back Tag [redacted] and Tag [redacted] for slaughter as food to [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 sulfadimethoxine at 0.14 parts per million (ppm) in the liver tissue. A tolerance of 0.1 ppm has been established for residues of sulfadimethoxine in the edible tissues of cattle as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations Section 556.640 (21 C.F.R. 556.640). The USDA/FSIS analysis of tissue samples collected from that animal also identified the presence of sulfamethazine at 0.46 ppm in the liver tissue and 0.19 ppm in the muscle tissue. There is no established tolerance for residues of sulfamethazine in lactating dairy cows. The presence of these drugs in these amounts in edible tissue from this animal causes the food to be adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) [(21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(2)(C)(ii)] of the Act.
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 complete treatment records, and you failed to assure that appropriate withdrawal times have been observed. Food from animals held under such conditions is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(4) [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(4)] of the Act.
In addition, you adulterated the new animal drug Sustain III (sulfamethazine) Bolus within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) [21 U.S.C. § 351 (a)(5)] of the Act when you failed to use the drug in conformance with its 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 and 21 C.F.R. Part 530. Our investigation found that your extralabel use of Sustain III failed to comply with these requirements. For example, you administered the Sustain III without following the withdrawal period set forth in the approved labeling and you did so without the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(a). Furthermore, your extralabel use resulted in an illegal drug residue, in violation of 21 C.F.R. 530.11(c). Because your extralabel use of this drug was not in compliance with 21 CFR Part 530, the drug was unsafe under section 512(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 360b(a)] and your use caused it to be adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 301(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 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 Michael J. Donovan, Compliance Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 22201 23rd Drive SE, Bothell, Washington 98021-4421. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Mr. Michael Donovan at (425) 483-4906.
Charles M. Breen