NEWS / FDA WATCH
Warning-letter briefings on cleaning validation, equipment condition and contamination control, read against the requirements they touch.
13 briefings sourced from FDA warning letters. Dates refer to the original sources.
AI illustrationInspection Watch
A 2026 FDA warning letter to Dabur India rejects a shared-equipment cleaning programme that relied exclusively on visual inspection. The objection is narrower than it appears — and it turns on missing quantitative limits, not on visual inspection itself.
Read the briefing
AI illustrationDeep Analysis
Twelve FDA warning letters issued between 3 December 2024 and 24 July 2026 cite cleaning and cross-contamination control. Read together rather than case by case, they stop looking like twelve incidents and start looking like one audit checklist: worst-case selection, hold times, recovery, MACO justification, visual-only strategies, sampling locations, change control and lifecycle management — in that order of frequency.
Read the briefing
AI illustrationInspection Watch
FDA's 1 May 2026 warning letter to Harbin Jixianglong Biotech found a cleaning procedure that required a toxicity-based carryover limit, and a validation study that established none — with no justification for swab locations and no swab results.
Read the briefingInspection Watch
An FDA investigator found white residue inside Tank #68 at Chemco Corporation — equipment the quality unit had already verified as clean. The finding itself is mundane. What it exposes about release decisions, shared equipment and the absence of cleaning validation is not.
Read the briefingInspection Watch
FDA's Warning Letter 320-26-43 to Cosmetic Manufacturers (Aust) Pty Ltd. states that the firm's cleaning validation protocol 'was not designed to demonstrate reproducibility'. The cause is a design flaw that is easy to copy by accident: each qualification run sampled a different set of locations, so the runs were never replicates of the same measurement.
Read the briefingInspection Watch
FDA Warning Letter 320-26-40 to Cohance Lifesciences did not turn on a single residue number. It turned on whether the firm's verification programme could have found the carryover at all — and whether its worst-case basis was ever revisited.
Read the briefing
AI illustrationInspection Watch
FDA's December 2025 letter to Medinatura New Mexico records a firm acknowledging that its cleaning validation was not reflective of current operations after years of buying new equipment and adding new products. What the gap looks like from the inside — and what it asks of change control.
Read the briefing
AI illustrationInspection Watch
The FDA's August 2025 warning letter to ABBE Laboratories describes a 2009 cleaning validation still standing while a harder-to-clean product was introduced onto the same shared kettle — and no change-control step that caught it.
Read the briefingInspection Watch
A March 2025 FDA warning letter to Aspen Biopharma Labs Private Limited records investigators finding manufacturing equipment labelled "Cleaned" while liquid with a floating substance or residue remained on product-contact surfaces. That gap between a status tag and physical reality is one of the most consequential — and most preventable — failures in cleaning validation.
Read the briefing
AI illustrationInspection Watch
The FDA rejected a retrospective MACO argument in a February 2025 warning letter — not because the arithmetic was wrong, but because the cleaning it assumed had not been performed. What cleaning-validation teams can take from it.
Read the briefingInspection Watch
In Warning Letter 320-25-38 the FDA did not attack visual inspection as a technique. It objected to a cleaning programme in which visual inspection was the only evidence on the table — no acceptance criteria for carryover residues, no analytical data, and no procedures for the rest of the equipment train.
Read the briefingInspection Watch
A December 2024 warning letter to Brands International Corporation cites the firm under 21 CFR 211.67(b) for failing to perform cleaning validation studies on non-dedicated equipment — and asks for a cleaning programme built around worst-case products, worst-case swab sites and maximum hold times before cleaning.
Read the briefingInspection Watch
An FDA Warning Letter to Indian API manufacturer Micro Orgo Chem describes non-dedicated equipment that had never been cleaned under a validated procedure, cleaning SOPs that were not followed, and no evidence that the rinse and swab samples required by the firm's own procedure were ever collected or tested.
Read the briefing