Meyer Farm 22-Nov-06

November 22, 2006

WARNING LETTER

CERTIFIED MAII.
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Refer to MIN 07 - 06

Gary and Allen Meyer
Owners
Meyer Farm
25338 - 393rd Avenue
Belgrade, Minnesota 56312

Dear Messrs. Meyer:

An investigation of your dairy operation located in Belgrade, Minnesota, was conducted by an investigator from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, acting on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on September 6, 2006. This investigation 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 penicillin G procaine 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 web page at www.fda.gov.

On or about April 3, 2006, you consigned a dairy cow, identified with back tag 9261, for slaughter at [redacted]. On or about April 4, 2006, this animal was slaughtered at [redacted]. The United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from that animal identified the presence of 0.45 ppm penicillin in kidney tissue.

A tolerance of 0.05 ppm has been established for residues of penicillin in kidney tissues of cattle as codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 556.510 (21 CFR 556.510. The presence of this drug in kidney tissue from this animal in this amount 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, your firm's animal treatment records do not include the drug used, the dosage given, route of administration, individual who administered the drug and appropriate withdrawal times. 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 penicillin G procaine within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)] when you failed to use this drug in conformance with the 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 CFR 530. Our investigation found that your extralabel use of penicillin G procaine failed to comply with these requirements.

For example, you administered the penicillin G procaine without following the dosage level and dosage amount per injection site 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). Because your extralabel use of this drug was not in compliance with 21 CFR 530, your use caused the drug to be 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. 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 Marie A. Fadden, Acting Compliance Officer, at the address located on the letterhead . If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Ms. Fadden at (612) 758-7172.

Sincerely,

/S/

W. Charles Becoat
Director
Minneapolis District