- Sushi Den Japan
- Issuing Office:
- Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Department of Health and Human Services
|Public Health Service|
Food and Drug Administration
|5100 Paint Branch Parkway|
College Park, MD 20740
JUN 24 2014
VIA EXPRESS DELIVERY
Kazuaki Miyai, President
Sushi Den Japan
1-9-22 Minato Street
Chuo-ku, Fukuoka-shi, Fukuoka-ken
81 0-007 5 Japan
Reference # 431495
Dear Mr. Miyai:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected your seafood processing facility Sushi Den, located at 1-9-22 Minato, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka-shi, Japan on February 6-7, 2014. During that inspection, we found that you had violations of the seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulation, Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 123 (21 CFR 123). At the conclusion of the inspection, the FDA investigator issued an FDA 483, Inspectional Observations, listing the observations made at your firm. As of this date, we have not received a response from your firm.
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 Bonita, Yellowtail, Spanish Mackerel, and Jack Mackerel are adulterated, in that they have been prepared, packed, or held under conditions whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health.
You may find the Act, the seafood HACCP regulation and the 4th Edition of the Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance (the Hazards Guide) through links on FDA's home page at www.fda.gov. The Hazards Guide, which provides our recommendations regarding identification and control of food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur for your fish and fishery products, can be found on our web site at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Seafood/ucm2018426.htm.
Your significant deviations are as follows:
1. You must conduct a hazard analysis to determine whether there are food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur and have a HACCP plan that, at a minimum, lists the critical control points to comply with 21 CFR 123.6(a) and (c)(2).
A critical control point is defined in 21 CFR 123.3 (b) as a "point, step, or procedure in a food process at which control can be applied and a food safety hazard can as a result be prevented, eliminated, or reduced to acceptable levels." However, your firm does not have a HACCP plan for fresh raw Bonita, Yellowtail, Spanish Mackerel, and Jack Mackerel intended for raw consumption as sushi to control the food safety hazards of pathogen growth and scombrotoxin (histamine). Specifically, your firm exports Bonito, Yellowtail, Spanish Mackerel, and Jack Mackerel which are scombrotoxin forming fish and intended as raw ready to eat. Additionally, your fresh Spanish and Jack Mackerel pose a food safety hazard for parasites.
2. You must monitor sanitation conditions and practices during processing with sufficient frequency to ensure compliance with current good manufacturing requirements in 21 CFR Part 110, to comply with 21 CFR 123.11(b). However, your firm did not monitor the (1) condition and cleanliness of food contact surfaces; (2) maintenance of hand washing facilities; (3) and prevention of cross contamination with sufficient frequency to ensure compliance with the current good manufacturing practice requirements in 21 CFR 110 as evidenced by:
• Presence of dried food particles and rust on knives used for trimming fish;
• Lack of a means to dry hands after washing at sink;
• An employee was smoking by the hand sink and did not wash their hands before returning to work;
• The probe thermometer used to take temperatures of raw ready to eat seafood was not cleaned and sanitized prior to use;
• Inadequate light in the food preparation area. Adequate light is needed to enable employees to perform certain functions including recognizing the condition of food, utensils, and supplies;
• The handles on the faucets and piping were visibly soiled.
You should respond in writing within 15 working days from your receipt of this letter. Your response should outline the specific steps you are taking to correct these deviations. More specifically, your response should include documentation reflecting the changes you made, such as a copy of your revised HACCP plan, five (5) consecutive days of completed monitoring records (i.e., complete sets of monitoring records for the production of 5 production date codes of products) to demonstrate implementation of the plan, and any additional information that you wish to supply that provides assurance of your intent to fully comply now and in the future with the seafood HACCP regulation. If you cannot complete all corrections within 15 days, you should explain the reason for your delay and state when you will correct any remaining violations.
If you do not respond or if we find your response inadequate, we may take further action. For instance, we may take further action to refuse admission of your imported fish or fishery products under Section 801(a) of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 381(a)), including placing them on detention without physical examination (DWPE). FDA's DWPE is an administrative procedure whereby products offered for import into the United States may be detained without physical examination upon entry. DWPE information may be conveyed in FDA's Import Alerts. For your information, an example of an Import Alert that conveys information specific to foreign firms that are not in compliance with the seafood HACCP regulation is Import Alert #16-120. You may view this alert at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/ialist.html.
Additionally, 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. Are-inspection is 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 there-inspection and assessing and collecting there-inspection fees (21 U.S.C. § 379j-31(a)(2)(B)). For a foreign facility, FDA will assess and collect fees for reinspection-related costs from the U.S. Agent for the foreign 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. Please consider providing a copy of this letter to your U.S. Agent.
This letter may not list all the deviations at your facility. You are responsible for ensuring that your processing plant operates in compliance with the Act and all applicable regulations, including the Seafood HACCP regulation, and the Good Manufacturing Practice regulation (21 CFR 110). You also have a responsibility to use procedures to prevent further violations of the Act and all applicable regulations.
Please send your reply to Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Standra Purnell, Compliance Officer, Food Adulteration Assessment Branch (HFS-607), Division of Enforcement, Office of Compliance, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740 U.S.A. If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Ms. Purnell via email at email@example.com.
Office of Compliance
Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition