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

May 21, 2012

Pharmaceutical Product Recall: New FDA Requirements

Informed Counsel

Medicine is an integral part of our lives, helping us to recover from illness and allowing us to live a longer and healthier life. However, the great benefits derived from medicine are also accompanied by a great many risks, which may be derived from the properties of the drug substance, the quality of the medicine, or in some cases, the defectiveness of the drug product itself.

A product recall is required when safety issues arise, and the defective products are required to be returned to the manufacturer or distributor. Drug recalls can be extremely costly and can damage consumer confidence in the product or company, so naturally all companies try their utmost to avoid such a scenario.

Recalls can be initiated either voluntarily or at the request of the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A recall usually results from some combination of a discovery by the manufacturer, customer complaints, or FDA observation.

Discoveries by the Manufacturer

A recall that is initiated by a manufacturer may be based on corporate conscience (or corporate social responsibility), in order to ensure compliance with the essential elements of the law, ethical standards, and business norms. Such recalls may also be designed to limit liability for corporate negligence, which can result in huge amounts of legal penalties, and can also represent an attempt to minimize damage to corporate image.

Recalls are costly to a company, because they often entail replacing the recalled product or paying for damage caused by use of the product, although this is possibly less costly than the costs that might otherwise be caused by damage to the brand name and diminished trust in the manufacturer.

Last year, a multinational company discovered, through its own routine testing program, a microbial contamination in its mouthwash product. Because the microorganism could cause adverse effects in people with weakened immune systems, the company voluntarily removed its product from all market shelves in Thailand.

Customer Complaints

People generally do not ask sufficient questions when they lack knowledge about a subject, including medication. Some people think that new medicines are more effective or safer, but this may not necessarily be true.

As a safeguard measure, the Thai FDA has implemented a Safety Monitoring Program (SMP), in which healthcare providers are requested to collect, evaluate, and study drug safety information in a proactive manner. This process relies on consumers or medical practitioners first identifying an abnormality and reporting it to the FDA and the company, which will in turn evaluate the complaint. This post-marketing surveillance system is gaining increasing importance, as it facilitates the Thai FDA’s handling of drug safety information, and enables them to take any necessary measures promptly.

FDA Observation

Drug product recalls can also be necessitated as a result of an observation made by the FDA during an inspection. Samples of marketed products are regularly tested in the analysis laboratory at the Ministry of Public Health. Significant compliance deficiencies that are noted by the FDA can result in a company having to recall some, or all, of its drug lots. For example, the Thai FDA recently found the adulteration of methyl alcohol—a toxic impurity—in traditional medicine, which led to two batches of these drug products being recalled and an announcement of the violation and the manufacturer’s name by the FDA.

The Thai FDA has also demanded the product recall of cold remedies containing pseudoephedrine (PSE), which has been used as a precursor of methamphetamine, referred to locally as yaa baa.

On April 3, 2012, the Ministry of Public Health distributed a Notification stating that remedies containing PSE are type 2 psychotropic substances, and thus people cannot possess more than 5 grams of PSE.

To avoid being penalized, pharmacies that sell medicines containing PSE have been given 30 days to return the drug products to the manufacturers or distributors. Violations will incur a fine of between THB 100,000 and THB 400,000 (approximately USD 3,415 to USD 13,650), and a jail term of between 5 and 20 years.

New Requirements of the Thai FDA

Last year, a Ministerial Notification from the Ministry of Public Health announced a new Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), which emphasizes that manufacturers must have in place a prompt and effective system to facilitate drug product recalls.

The importer or distributor should have a person who is responsible for assessing risks and coordinating product recalls with the FDA.

If there are grounds to justify the health assessment risks, the company must submit the recall submission document, which contains all the details required to enable the FDA to evaluate the product failure, assess how the failure will affect consumer safety, and formulate an adequate course of action.

This plan must include the product details, a description of the problem, distribution information, a health-hazard assessment, and the proposed recall strategy. Maintaining detailed and accurate records is absolutely critical, and indeed this can be the most important aspect in conducting the product recall.

The Thai FDA has outlined the form that the importer or distributor must fill out and submit to the FDA on completion. In addition, the Thai FDA announced on February 16, 2012, that all applicants must submit the “Recall Commitment” document, together with the drug product registration documents. Failure to comply will result in the rejection of the registration dossier, as it will be deemed to be incomplete.

In summary, recent amendments in the Ministerial Notifications have helped to advance voluntary product recalls by business operators, so that such actions are more compulsory. This, in turn, will provide supplementary assistance to government agencies and enable them to pinpoint issues and identify potentially harmful drug products more promptly and effectively, thus offering consumers a greater degree of protection.

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