Comparative Study of Drug Recall Procedures in India and the USA

The critical role of drug recalls in protecting public health from defective or harmful pharmaceutical products cannot be overstated. In an era where pharmaceutical supply chains span continents and millions of patients depend on timely access to safe medicines, the ability to swiftly and effectively remove a compromised product from the market is a cornerstone of modern drug safety regulation[1]. A drug recall is not merely a logistical exercise; it is a public health intervention designed to prevent morbidity and mortality by eliminating products that fail to meet quality, safety, or efficacy standards. These failures can arise from diverse causes—manufacturing errors, contamination, incorrect labelling, packaging defects, or unexpected adverse reactions identified only after marketing approval. Without a robust recall mechanism, such defects can propagate through the distribution network, reaching hospitals, pharmacies, and ultimately patients, with potentially catastrophic consequences. The 2008 heparin contamination incident in the United States, which led to dozens of deaths and hundreds of serious allergic reactions, exemplifies the lethal potential of a delayed or ineffective recall. Conversely, a well-executed recall—such as the rapid withdrawal of valsartan products contaminated with probable human carcinogens (NDMA) in 2018—demonstrates how regulatory vigilance can mitigate harm, even when the initial quality failure originates in a distant manufacturing facility. Thus, drug recall procedures are not a peripheral aspect of pharmaceutical regulation; they are a vital safety net that catches defects that have escaped earlier checks in the drug development and manufacturing chain. The increasing volume and complexity of drug recalls in both developed and emerging economies further underscore the urgency of understanding and improving these procedures[2]. Over the past two decades, the number of drug recalls reported annually to major regulators has risen significantly, a trend driven by several interrelated factors. First, the globalization of pharmaceutical production has created long, opaque supply chains. Active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and finished dosage forms are often manufactured in one country, packaged in another, and distributed globally. This fragmentation introduces multiple points of failure, from cross-contamination in shared facilities to the use of adulterated raw materials. Second, advances in analytical chemistry have lowered the detection limits for impurities, enabling regulators and manufacturers to identify previously undetectable or ignored contaminants—such as nitrosamines—triggering widespread recalls that would have been impossible to initiate a generation ago. Third, heightened pharmacovigilance and adverse event reporting systems, coupled with social media and 24‑hour news cycles, increase the pressure on firms to act quickly when a potential defect is identified. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) processed over 1,200 drug recall events in 2023 alone, ranging from minor labelling corrections to Class I recalls involving life‑threatening risks[3]. India, as a major global supplier of generic medicines, has also seen a steep rise in recall activity, both voluntarily initiated by domestic manufacturers and mandated by importing countries. However, the complexity of recalls is not only quantitative; it is also qualitative. Recalls now frequently involve not just single products but entire families of drugs, requiring coordination across multiple regulatory jurisdictions, languages, and legal systems. Moreover, the rise of biologics and biosimilars introduces new challenges, as these products are more sensitive to storage and handling deviations, and their recall often forces patients to switch therapies abruptly—a decision with its own clinical risks. Hence, studying the procedural frameworks that govern recalls is not an academic luxury; it is a practical necessity for ensuring that the volume and complexity of modern drug defects do not outpace the capacity of regulatory systems to respond[4][5].

Why a comparative analysis of India and the USA is relevant for improving global drug safety can be understood by examining the distinctive yet interconnected roles these two nations play in the international pharmaceutical landscape. The United States represents the world’s largest pharmaceutical market by revenue, with a regulatory system that is often considered a gold standard for drug safety. The FDA’s recall procedures, embedded in 21 CFR Part 7 and elaborated in the Regulatory Procedures Manual, benefit from decades of refinement, significant legal authority, substantial budgetary resources, and a culture of transparency through publicly accessible enforcement reports. The US system is predominantly voluntary—firms initiate most recalls—but the FDA can leverage its inspection, seizure, and injunction powers to compel action when necessary. For any other country seeking to design or upgrade its recall regulations, the US model provides a rich source of best practices, as well as lessons from its own failures and limitations, such as the difficulty of enforcing recalls on foreign facilities or the risk of drug shortages following large‑scale withdrawals[6][7].

In contrast, India is the “pharmacy of the world,” supplying over 60% of global vaccine demand and 20% of generic medicines by volume, including a substantial fraction of drugs consumed in the United States. Yet India’s domestic recall framework has long been criticized as fragmented and legally weak. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) operates under a federal structure where state licensing authorities retain significant autonomy, and the official “Guidelines on Recall and Rapid Alert System” have not been incorporated into the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, rendering them non‑binding. Consequently, while India has produced recall guidelines that mirror the three‑tier classification (Class I, II, III) used by the FDA, implementation remains inconsistent. Recalls are largely voluntary, and there is no centralized, publicly searchable database of all drug recalls occurring within India[8][9]. This creates a troubling asymmetry: drugs that fail quality tests in India may not be systematically recalled from the Indian market, yet the same drugs destined for export are subject to the stringent recall requirements of importing countries like the US or the European Union. A comparative analysis thus illuminates a fundamental tension in global drug safety governance: supply chains are global, but recall authority remains national or sub‑national. By juxtaposing a mature, legally enforceable system (USA) with a rapidly evolving but structurally constrained system (India), researchers can identify which elements of recall procedure are truly essential and transferable across different legal and economic contexts. For India, the comparison offers concrete pathways for legislative reform—such as embedding recall mandates into the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and establishing a public recall registry. For the United States, the comparison highlights the risks of relying on foreign manufacturers that operate under weaker domestic recall regimes, reinforcing the need for mutual recognition agreements and joint inspection programs. Ultimately, improving drug safety on a global scale requires not only strong individual regulators but also harmonized expectations and cooperative mechanisms. A detailed comparative study of India and the USA serves as a microcosm of this larger challenge, offering lessons that can inform regulatory convergence under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) and the World Health Organization (WHO)[10][11].

Historical Evolution of Drug Regulation

The historical evolution of drug regulation in India, particularly the seminal event leading to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940 and Rules of 1945, is often traced to the Maselkar poisonings of 1937—though the name is often misremembered in popular accounts. In fact, the tragedy that galvanized Indian drug law was the 1937 poisoning in the United States from Elixir Sulfanilamide, which killed over 100 people, and its ripple effects on British India[12][13]. However, the most directly cited Indian catalyst is the 1937 death of 14 patients at the Masulipatnam Government Hospital (present‑day Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh) after being administered a contaminated analgesic and antipyretic mixture. Some historical records refer to this as the “Maselkar” or “Masulipatnam” poisoning. The incident occurred when a batch of a proprietary medicine called “M&B 693” (a sulfonamide derivative) was improperly manufactured, leading to severe adverse reactions. Although the exact number of victims remains debated, the public outrage forced the colonial government to recognize the utter inadequacy of the then‑prevailing law—the Poisons Act of 1919, which focused narrowly on a limited set of labeled poisons and did not regulate the quality, safety, or efficacy of therapeutic drugs. In response, the government appointed a committee chaired by Lieutenant Colonel R. N. Chopra, a renowned pharmacologist, to draft comprehensive drug legislation. The Chopra Committee’s report, submitted in 1939, became the blueprint for the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 194[14][15]0. The Act was passed by the Central Legislative Assembly and received assent on 10 April 1940, but its operative rules—the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules—were not finalized until 1945, after a series of further consultations and the disruption caused by World War II. The Act established the concept of “standard quality” for drugs, created schedules for different categories of medicines, and mandated that manufacturers obtain licenses. Importantly, it also empowered the government to prohibit the manufacture and sale of any drug that did not conform to specified standards. This foundational legislation, although amended dozens of times over the ensuing eight decades, remains the statutory backbone for drug regulation in India. The 1940 Act did not, however, explicitly provide for a structured drug recall procedure as understood today; recalls were handled on an ad hoc basis through licensing actions and court injunctions. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s, following international developments and high‑profile contaminations (e.g., the 1982 Tylenol cyanide incident in the US), that Indian authorities began formulating voluntary recall guidelines. The current “Guidelines on Recall and Rapid Alert System” were first issued in 2012 and revised in 2017, but they still lack the force of law—a deficiency that directly motivates contemporary comparative research[16]h.

For the United States, the historical evolution of drug regulation is similarly punctuated by a catastrophic mass poisoning that reshaped federal authority[17]: the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937. In the autumn of that year, the S. E. Massengill Company, a Tennessee‑based manufacturer, prepared a liquid formulation of the new sulfanilamide antibiotic using diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent. Diethylene glycol, a cheap and effective solvent, is also a potent toxin that causes acute renal failure and metabolic acidosis[18][19]. The company had conducted no safety testing of the solvent; indeed, at the time, there was no federal requirement for pre‑marketing safety evaluation of drugs. The resulting “Elixir Sulfanilamide” was distributed across the United States. Within weeks, physicians began reporting patients—many of them children—who developed agonizing abdominal pain, anuria, and coma followed by death. The final death toll reached 107, including many young patients who had taken the elixir for minor streptococcal infections. This disaster triggered a national outcry and directly propelled the passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act of 1938. Unlike the earlier Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which focused primarily on prohibiting misbranding and adulteration after the fact, the 1938 Act introduced several landmark provisions: it required that drugs be proven safe before marketing (though not yet effective); it authorized factory inspections; it extended control to cosmetics and therapeutic devices; and it provided for court injunctions and seizure of illegal products[20][21]. The 1938 Act did not, however, establish a mandatory recall procedure. Recalls remained essentially voluntary, with the FDA’s main leverage being the threat of seizure or injunction. The absence of a formal recall power became increasingly problematic as the pharmaceutical industry expanded after World War II. A second transformative event—the thalidomide tragedy of the early 1960s, in which the drug caused thousands of birth defects in Europe and elsewhere—exposed the safety gaps even in the 1938 framework. Although thalidomide was never approved for general use in the United States, largely due to the vigilant review of FDA medical officer Frances Oldham Kelsey, the near‑miss galvanized Congress to pass the Kefauver‑Harris Amendments in 1962. These amendments radically reshaped drug regulation by requiring not only safety but also “substantial evidence” of efficacy from adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials. They also mandated that pharmaceutical companies report adverse events to the FDA, gave the agency explicit authority to withdraw approvals, and required informed consent from research subjects. In terms of recalls, the 1962 amendments strengthened the FDA’s hand by allowing the agency to monitor and oversee voluntary recalls more closely and, for the first time, to request recall of defective prescription drugs under the agency’s expanded injunction powers[22]. Yet it was not until 1974, after a series of voluntary recalls proved ineffective in removing contaminated intrauterine devices and other products from the market, that the FDA formally issued its “Recalls (Including Product Corrections) – Policy, Procedures, and Industry Responsibilities” (21 CFR Part 7). This regulation codified the now‑familiar three‑class recall system (Class I, II, III) based on relative health hazard and detailed the respective responsibilities of the FDA and the recalling firm. Unlike India, where recall guidelines remain non‑binding, the US framework is enforceable law, with civil and criminal penalties for non‑compliance[23][24].

Fig: 1 US vs. India Regulatory Comparison

Fig: 2 Regulatory Affairs and Intellectual Property Rights in Immunotherapeutics

Voluntary recall as the dominant practice – In the absence of a binding recall statute, most recalls in India are initiated voluntarily by responsible manufacturers, often in response to a non‑conformity detected through their own quality systems or after a warning from an importing country (e.g., a USFDA import alert). The CDSCO can publicly announce a recall on its website, but it cannot compel pharmacies or hospitals to return the product without state-level enforcement. This voluntary system works reasonably well for large, reputable Indian pharmaceutical companies that export to regulated markets, but it provides little protection against smaller, less scrupulous manufacturers who may simply ignore recall requests.

In essence, the CDSCO’s recall system is characterized by an apex coordinating body with limited legal teeth, a federal structure that fragments enforcement authority, non‑statutory guidelines, and heavy reliance on voluntary cooperation from both industry and state regulators. This configuration explains why, despite having recall guidelines since 2012,[40] India still lacks a systematic, transparent, and enforceable recall mechanism comparable to that of the United States.

 Comparative Governance Analysis

A direct comparison of governance structures, statutory authorities, and key statutes between India and the United States reveals fundamental differences that explain the divergent effectiveness of drug recall procedures in the two countries. The following points synthesize the comparative analysis:

A. Structure: Centralized (USA) vs. Federal (India)

United States (centralized): The FDA operates as a single, unified federal agency with nationwide jurisdiction. There is no layer of state drug licensing authorities that can override or ignore federal recall decisions. Field offices are administrative sub‑units of the FDA, not independent state regulators. This centralization ensures that once the FDA classifies a recall, the decision is binding across all states, territories, and distribution channels. Uniformity is further reinforced by federal pre‑emption – state laws that conflict with federal drug safety requirements are generally invalid. Consequently, a drug recalled in California is automatically recalled in Texas and New York.

India (federal): The CDSCO is the central authority, but the Constitution of India places “drugs and poisons” in the Concurrent List (List III, Entry 19), meaning both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate on the subject. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act is a central law, but its implementation relies heavily on state licensing authorities, which are independent bureaucracies accountable to their respective state governments. There is no automatic pre‑emption; states can, in theory, adopt stricter or more lenient enforcement practices as long as they do not directly contradict the central law. This federal asymmetry means that a recall direction from the DCGI may be implemented promptly in a state with a well‑resourced drug control department, but delayed or ignored in a state with limited capacity or competing political priorities. The result is a patchwork recall landscape that undermines patient safety[41].

B. Authority: FDA’s statutory powers vs. CDSCO’s reliance on state cooperation

United States (direct statutory powers): The FDA possesses direct, enforceable legal authority under the FD&C Act. It can inspect factories without prior notice (Section 704), detain suspect products administratively (Section 304(g)), seize adulterated or misbranded drugs (Section 304(a)), and seek injunctions to stop manufacturing or distribution (Section 302). Although the FDA cannot issue a unilateral mandatory recall order for drugs, its seizure and injunction powers create such strong leverage that firms almost always comply with voluntary recall requests. Additionally, the FDA can impose civil monetary penalties, initiate criminal prosecutions (Section 303), and issue debarment orders against corporate officers. These powers are exercised directly by federal employees, not delegated to state officials.

India (indirect, cooperative authority): The CDSCO lacks comparable direct enforcement tools. While Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act allows the central government to prohibit a drug, this is a rarely used, cumbersome administrative process that does not include provisions for physically retrieving distributed stock. The primary enforcement actions – suspension or cancellation of licenses, seizures, and prosecutions – are carried out by State Licensing Authorities under state rules. The CDSCO can request, coordinate, and publish recall notices, but it cannot compel a state SLA to act. If a state chooses not to enforce a recall, the CDSCO’s only recourse is to refer the matter to the central government for possible direction under Article 256 of the Constitution (which is rarely invoked in drug safety matters). Thus, the CDSCO’s authority is fundamentally cooperative and advisory, not coercive.

C. Key Statutes: Comparison of the FD&C Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act

The FD&C Act is a comprehensive, living statute that has been amended dozens of times to address emerging challenges, including the Kefauver‑Harris Amendments (1962) for efficacy, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (1987) for wholesale distribution, and the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (2013) for traceability. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, while regularly amended, has not undergone similarly foundational overhauls in recall‑related provisions. Key definitions (e.g., “not of standard quality”) are broad but lack specific recall triggers[42].

The FD&C Act does not have a dedicated “recall section” for drugs, but it provides a suite of powers (seizure, injunction, detention, import alerts) that functionally enable recall implementation. In contrast, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act contains Section 26A (prohibition power) and Section 22 (inspector’s powers), but no provision explicitly authorizes the CDSCO to order a recall and mandate return of products from the market. The absence of a statutory recall provision is precisely why the CDSCO’s recall guidelines remain non‑binding – they have no parent section in the Act to give them legal force[43].

Enforcement mechanisms: The FD&C Act provides for civil and criminal penalties, including fines up to $500,000 and imprisonment for knowing violations. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act includes penalties (e.g., Section 27: imprisonment up to life for spurious drugs causing death), but these are focused on manufacturing or selling defective drugs, not on failing to execute a recall. A manufacturer who ignores a recall request may be prosecuted for selling NSQ drugs, but the recall itself is not the subject of the violation. This distinction is important: under the FD&C Act, the refusal to comply with a recall request can be used as evidence of continuing adulteration; under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the refusal alone is not a separate offense[44]. Transparency requirements: The FD&C Act, through FDA’s implementing regulations, requires public disclosure of recall information via Weekly Enforcement Reports and the FDA Recall database. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act has no comparable transparency mandate. The CDSCO publishes some recall notices on its website, but there is no legal requirement to do so, and no centralized, searchable database of all drug recalls occurring in India. Synthesis of comparative governance analysis: The US system embodies a “command‑and‑control” model with centralized authority, direct enforcement powers, and statutory codification of recall procedures. The Indian system reflects a “coordinated federal” model where the center sets policy and guidelines, but states execute enforcement. This structural difference means that a recall decision in the US is an actionable order; in India, it is a request that depends on state cooperation and manufacturer goodwill. Consequently, while the CDSCO’s recall guidelines are conceptually sound, their lack of legal force and the fragmented federal governance structure undermine their effectiveness. Any meaningful reform of India’s recall system must address not only the guidelines themselves but also the underlying statutory framework and center‑state implementation mechanisms – an insight that emerges clearly from this comparative governance analysis[45].

CONCLUSION

This comparative study of drug recall procedures in India and the United States reveals fundamental differences in governance structure, statutory authority, and implementation effectiveness, while also highlighting areas of convergence and mutual learning. The US system, built upon decades of legislative refinement following catastrophic events such as the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937 and the thalidomide tragedy, represents a mature, centralized model. The FDA operates as a unified federal agency with direct enforcement powers—seizure, injunction, criminal prosecution, and import alerts—that, although not including a standalone mandatory recall order for drugs, create such powerful leverage that voluntary recalls are almost always complied with. The codification of recall procedures in 21 CFR Part 7, the three‑tier classification based on health hazard evaluation, and the statutory requirement for public disclosure through Weekly Enforcement Reports collectively ensure transparency, uniformity, and accountability. Challenges remain, particularly in enforcing recalls against foreign manufacturers and mitigating drug shortages following large withdrawals, but the structural integrity of the US framework is well established.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2025). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Part 7 – Enforcement policy. U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/part-7
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2021). Regulatory procedures manual, Chapter 7: Recall procedures. https://www.fda.gov
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Compliance approaches to emerging threats: FY 2023 compliance activities. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/184268/download
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). Guidance for industry: Product recalls, including removals and corrections. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
5. U.S. Congress. (1938). Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (1938).
6. U.S. Congress. (1962). Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments, Pub. L. No. 87-781, 76 Stat. 780 (1962).
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Enforcement report information and definitions. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.fda.gov/safety/enforcement-reports
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). FDA’s role in drug recalls. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.fda.gov
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). FDA recall classification decision tree. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.fda.gov
10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2021). Public warning and notification of recalls under 21 CFR Part 7, Subpart C: Guidance for industry and FDA staff. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
11. Government of India. (1940). Drugs and Cosmetics Act, No. 23 of 1940, as amended.
12. Government of India. (1945). Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, G.S.R. 597(E), as amended.
13. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. (2017). Guidelines on recall and rapid alert system for drugs (including biologicals & vaccines) (Version 2017, Document No. CDSCO/RRAS Ver.: 00). Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. https://cdsco.gov.in
14. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. (2012). Standard operating procedure for manufacturers on recall & rapid alert system for drugs including biologicals & vaccines. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
15. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. (1982). Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, No. 68 of 1982 (inserting Section 26A).
16. Drishti Judiciary. (2023, September 26). The lack of a drug recall law in India. Drishti Judiciary. https://drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/the-lack-of-a-drug-recall-law-in-india
17. Comparative Analysis of Drug Approval Pathways in India v.s U.S.A. (2024). International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 3(5). Guru Nanak College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dehradun. https://www.ijpsjournal.com/article/comparative-analysis-of-drug-approval-pathways-in-india-v-s-u-s-a
18. A review of CDSCO’s guidelines on Recall and rapid Alert system for Drugs. (2020). International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs, 8(4). https://www.ijdra.com
19. Pangavhane, P. S., Shinde, S. P., & Bhusal, S. B. (2024). Recall of drug in India and United Kingdom: A comparative review. International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs, 12(4), 97–102. https://www.ijdra.com/index.php/journal/article/view/726
20. Ensuring Product Safety: A Comprehensive Retrospective Study of USFDA Drug Recalls (2019–2023). (2024). Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation, 19, Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12247-024-09869-z
21. *The continuing challenge of drug recalls: Insights from a ten-year FDA data analysis (2012–2023)*. (2024). Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 251, 116321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2024.116321
22. Farrukh, M. J., Tariq, M. H., Malik, O., & Khan, T. M. (2019). Valsartan recall: Global regulatory overview and future challenges. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098618823458
23. Short commentary on NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) contamination of valsartan products. (2019). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 103, 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.008
24. Trends in pharmaceutical drug recalls from 2011 to 2023. (2023). Pharmaceutical Processing World. https://www.pharmaceuticalprocessingworld.com
25. *Decade-plus review of drug recall trends from 2011 to 2023*. (2023). Medical Design Sourcing. https://www.medicaldesignsourcing.com
26. A Study on Pharmaceutical Drug Recall in five different countries. (2023). Bhalodiya, B. L. Semantic Scholar. https://www.semanticscholar.org
27. Quality management of complaints and recalls of pharmaceuticals as per global GMPs. PharmaTutor. http://www.pharmatutor.org
28. Pharmacystandards. (n.d.). 18.4 Recall classification and execution. Pharmacy Standards. https://pharmacystandards.org
29. Seiter, A. (2010). A practical approach to pharmaceutical policy. World Bank Publications.
30. Cheng, M., & World Health Organization. (2003). Medical device regulations: Global overview and guiding principles. World Health Organization.
31. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2018). FDA’s investigation operations manual, Chapter 7: Recall procedures. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
32. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2021). Remote regulatory assessments: Q&A draft guidance for industry. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
33. Micklitz, H. W., & Saumier, G. (Eds.). (2010). Enforcement and effectiveness of consumer law. Springer.
34. World Health Organization. (2020). WHO global surveillance and alert system for substandard and falsified medical products. WHO Press.
35. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. (2017). ICH guideline M7(R1): Assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk. ICH.
36. ThePrint. (2024, October 9). India has a substandard, fake drugs problem. Lack of recall law, scrutiny is making matters worse. ThePrint. https://theprint.in
37. Hindustan Times. (2024, April 5). Health talk: An explainer on guidelines to recall drugs. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com
38. Reuters. (2018, September 17). Global health regulators find second toxin in common heart drug. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com
39. Pharmaceutical Technology. (2018, December 20). Valsartan update: Five months on and scale of contamination has grown. Pharmaceutical Technology. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com
40. FiercePharma. (2019, April 5). FDA declares 40 generics free of carcinogens as ‘sartan’ recalls continue. FiercePharma. https://www.fiercepharma.com
41. FiercePharma. (2018, August 7). Tainted valsartan has been on the market for 4 years, FDA discovers. FiercePharma. https://www.fiercepharma.com
42. CNN. (2018, July 13). FDA joins 22 countries’ recall of common heart drug. CNN. https://www.cnn.com
43. Lachman Consultants. (2024, January 17). FDA’s Office of Compliance issues FY 2023 annual report. Lachman Consultants. https://www.lachmanconsultants.com
44. Contract Pharma. (2024, February 1). Regulatory affairs: FDA’s Office of Compliance issues FY 2023 annual report. Contract Pharma. https://www.contractpharma.com
45. Insights10. (2024). US pharmaceutical market analysis. Insights10. https://www.insights10.com