You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 28, 2014

Good Manufacturing Practices in Thailand

Informed Counsel

In Thailand, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) were first implemented in 1979 for local pharmaceutical manufacturers under the Drug Act 1967 (B.E. 2510). In 1984, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) campaigned seriously for the pharmaceutical industry, and ultimately managed to update pharmaceutical standards, with the first Guidelines to Good Manufacturing Practices being issued in 1987. Also, as a way to standardize pharmaceutical factories, the Thai FDA began to officially grant GMP Certificates in 1989. 

By 2001, Thailand had adopted GMP Guidelines based on internationally recognized World Health Organization (WHO) standards, and in the same year, the Thai FDA applied the new guidelines to all local manufacturers and overseas manufacturers that intended to export drugs into Thailand.

GMP Accreditation

As an ASEAN member, Thailand has implemented ASEAN GMP. In order to comply with the ASEAN Sectorial Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), which was signed on April 10, 2009, Thailand must standardize its GMP guidelines to be in line with those of other ASEAN countries. In 2011, the Thai FDA issued GMP regulations and launched GMP Guidelines that complied with ASEAN GMP standards and the Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S)—this provided guidance to local manufacturers and raised overall standards.

In order to maintain the same GMP standards for both local and overseas manufacturers, the Thai FDA launched the Notification of GMP Accreditation of Overseas Manufacturers on October 1, 2012. Under this Notification, overseas pharmaceutical manufacturers which had never before been recorded in the Drug Product Registry of Thailand needed to be accredited by the Thai FDA before Marketing Authorization (MA) could be obtained. Pharmaceutical import companies must also submit an application for GMP accreditation before or at the same time as drug registration.

Required Documents

The documents to be submitted to the Thai FDA for GMP accreditation are separated into two schemes, Non-PIC/S members and PIC/S members, based on the overseas manufacturer’s country. If the overseas manufacturer is from a country that is a PIC/S member, the documents for GMP accreditation will be the PIC/S member checklist. The amount of documents for a PIC/S member to submit is less than that for a Non-PIC/S member. The required documents include:

  1. A Plant Master File for PIC/S or Non-PIC/S members or Certified/Audited by PIC/S, complying with the requirements stated in the Notification of the Ministry of Public Health Re: Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Requirements for Manufacturing of Modern Drugs in accordance with the Drug Act 2012 (B.E. 2555).
  2. The production details of the imported product, including details about the place and manufacturing area, production equipment involved in the manufacturing of each category of imported product, plant layout, and a flowchart and other relevant information indicating all manufacturing processes, including the premises.
  3. The latest GMP inspection report, issued by the authorized government agency of the country of origin or the International Certificate Organization (if applicable).
  4. A current Certificate of GMP, issued by the authorized government agency of the country of origin.

Under the four topics above, there are more than 100 documents to be submitted for PIC/S members and more than 200 documents to be submitted for Non-PIC/S members to the Thai FDA for GMP accreditation. All documents are reviewed by an FDA team of experts. Afterwards, all questions, requests, or suggestions will be sent to the applicant to answer and/or submit additional documents. A slide or video presentation of the manufacturer needs to be prepared to explain the manufacturing process, such as important zones of production, flow of production, etc.

The applicant is required to arrange for the translation of certain information which needs to be in Thai and submit it together with the English version. A company representative may be requested to meet with the subcommittee to explain and answer the expert team’s questions. A Corrective Action and Preventative Action (CAPA) proposal may need to be presented to the subcommittee for evaluation. In complex cases, an inspection at the site of manufacturing may be required by the Thai FDA.  

If manufacturing practices are considered to be GMP compliant and the CAPA proposal meets requirements, the Thai FDA will issue a GMP Certificate to an overseas manufacturer for the purpose of product registration. The same GMP Certificate may be used for other product registration applications if they have the same scope/type of manufacturing during the validity of the GMP Certificate, which is normally three years after the date of issuance. The GMP Certificate of an overseas manufacturer must therefore be renewed every three years.

Since its implementation in October 2012, only 10 manufacturers from PIC/S member countries have received GMP accreditation. Meanwhile, manufacturers from Non-PIC/S member countries are still pending accreditation. Due to limited staff and expert teams in the Thai FDA, along with the requirement to submit a large number of documents for manufacturers from Non-PIC/S member countries, it is more difficult for a Non-PIC/S member to be granted a GMP Certificate than it is for a PIC/S member.

Overseas manufacturers are not required to pay for GMP accreditation at any stage of the application.

Renewal and Ongoing Audits

As the GMP Certificate issued for an overseas manufacturer has to be renewed every three years, it seems that the Thai FDA is trying to control/audit all manufacturers with products registered in Thailand. Meanwhile, local manufacturers normally have to renew their GMP Certificates every two years.

The GMP accreditation regulation of overseas manufacturers does not, however, affect manufacturers with products that were submitted for drug registration before October 1, 2012, because the manufacturer’s name and address are available in the Thai FDA database. It would be possible to have them audited if product registration renewal was required. Unfortunately, there is no requirement in Thailand for product registration renewal every five years, unlike other countries in ASEAN such as Singapore, Malaysia, etc. Therefore, these overseas manufacturers are still awaiting audit by the Thai FDA. For the time being, there are no measures to manage the audit of these manufacturers. To complete the GMP system in Thailand, the Thai FDA has the burden to eliminate the gap between new and old overseas manufacturers. This leaves many observers wondering how best to control products from overseas manufacturers that have never been audited by the Thai FDA.

Comparisons among ASEAN Countries

Thailand is not currently a PIC/S member, so in order to ascend to the accepted list of ASEAN MRA, Thailand must develop its pharmaceutical GMP system to be on par with other ASEAN countries. This will reduce pharmaceutical trade barriers before the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is implemented in December 2015.         

ASEAN countries have country-specific regulations that differ due to the laws and regulations of each country. As in Thailand, GMP accreditation in Singapore came into effect on April 1, 2004, and all overseas manufacturers registering medicinal products in Singapore after that date have to meet the PIC/S GMP standard. Malaysia, too, now requires the GMP accreditation of manufacturers outside Malaysia to be taken into consideration before products are registered. Malaysia adopted the PIC/S Guide to GMP for medicinal products in 2002.

In Malaysia and Singapore, old manufacturers with products that have already been registered, but have never been audited, will be audited and inspected when Marketing Authorization is renewed. If the manufacturer does not pass inspection, Marketing Authorization will not be granted. For Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, and Indonesia, however, the GMP accreditation requirements for new overseas manufacturers are not as stringent as those seen in Malaysia and Singapore. The development of GMP accreditation in those countries will likely grow in the future to be on par with other ASEAN countries.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of