Freshwater Fish Products, Inc. 5/1/12
| || |
Department of Health and Human Services
|Public Health Service|
Food and Drug Administration
| ||Dallas District|
4040 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75204-3128
May 1, 2012
Christopher E. Swan, President and Co-owner
Thomas E. Swan, Vice President and Co-owner
Freshwater Fish Products, Inc.
500 W. Main Street
Bradford, Arkansas 72020
Dear Mr. Swan:
We inspected your seafood processing facility, located at 500 W. Main St., Bradford, Arkansas, on February 2 through 6, 2012. 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, (21 CFR 123). 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 sturgeon and paddlefish roe (caviar) are adulterated, in that they have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health.
You may find the Act, the seafood HACCP and labeling regulations, and the Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards & Controls Guidance through links in FDA's home page at www.fda.gov
Your significant violation is as follows:
1. You must have a HACCP plan that, at a minimum, lists the critical limits that must be met, to comply with 21 CFR 123.6(c)(3). A critical limit is defined in 21 CFR 123.3(c) as "the maximum or minimum value to which a physical, biological, or chemical parameter must be controlled at a critical control point to prevent, eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level the occurrence of the identified food safety hazard." However, your firm’s HACCP plan for sturgeon and paddlefish roe (caviar) lists a critical limit that is not adequate to control pathogens, including Clostridium botulinum growth and toxin production. Specifically, at the “Processing (b)(4)” critical control point your plan lists (b)(4) to control Pathogens growth (b)(4). However, FDA recommends that products such as refrigerated roe packed in a reduced oxygen-packaging material are sufficiently (b)(4) to achieve a (b)(4) level of at least (b)(4) as a secondary barrier, in addition to refrigeration, to prevent Clostridium botulinum growth and toxin formation.
We acknowledge receipt of your letter postmarked February 23, 2012, which states you are having a scientific study performed to validate your process. However, you have not provided a copy of this study and we are therefore unable to evaluate it.
We may take further action if you do not promptly correct this violation. For instance, we may take further action to seize your product(s) and/or enjoin your firm from operating.
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 and the seafood HACCP regulation (21 CFR Part 123). You also have a responsibility to use procedures to prevent further violations of the Act and all applicable regulations.
Section 743 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-31) authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees to cover FDA’s costs for certain activities, including re-inspection-related costs. A re-inspection is one or more inspections conducted subsequent to an inspection that identified noncompliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved. Re-inspection-related costs means all expenses, including administrative expenses, incurred in connection with FDA’s arranging, conducting, and evaluating the results of the re-inspection and assessing and collecting the re-inspection fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-31(a)(2)(B)).
For a domestic facility, FDA will assess and collect fees for re-inspection-related costs from the responsible party for the domestic facility. The inspection noted in this letter identified noncompliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the Act. Accordingly, FDA may assess fees to cover any re-inspection-related costs.
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.
Please send your reply to the Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Seri L. Essary, Compliance Officer, at the above letterhead address. If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Ms. Essary at (214)253-5335.
Reynaldo R. Rodriguez, Jr.
Dallas District Director