Nate Beaver, a partner in Foley’s Washington, D.C. office, works with manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. One of the most difficult aspects of FDA compliance is deciding whether to undertake a product recall, and Nate details the best way to go about it in this video. In particular, he discusses two key points to consider when deciding whether or not to recall a product.
Key Takeaways
- With FDA compliance, it can be difficult deciding when and how to undertake a product recall as these decisions must be made quickly.
- In some instances, FDA can order manufacturers to conduct a recall if serious safety concerns are identified.
- Regulated industries often self-identify an issue and then decide whether to voluntarily recall the affected product.
- If the product is a food
- Determine whether you are required to report to the reportable food registry within 24 hours.
- Food must be reported when there is reasonable probability it will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
- The 24-hour clock begins after you determine the food is a reportable food.
- Not a reportable food but a recall will be needed
- Determine whether or not to report the voluntary recall to FDA.
- Voluntary recalls are not required to be reported, but it is often recommended to proactively report and work with FDA collaboratively on the recall plan.
- Recalls that are not reported, may later be investigated by FDA.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
07 May 2024
Foley Ignite
Secondary Buyouts on the Rise – Will it Last?
In a time when exit strategies have pivoted, and options might be more limited, it is no surprise that secondary buyouts have rebounded.
06 May 2024
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Update: Supreme Court Revises Title VII’s Decades-Old “Adverse Employment Action” Standard for Discriminatory Transfers
In January 2024, we reported on a significant case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court. On April 17, 2024, the Court issued its decision in this case and, in doing so, modified the standard required to prove employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect to job transfers.
06 May 2024
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
EEOC’s New Harassment Enforcement Guidelines: A Good Primer for Addressing Workplace Harassment and Retaliation
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its long-awaited workplace harassment and enforcement guidelines to help employers understand what type of conduct the agency considered to be unlawful harassment.