Skip to content
ProPublica Donate
ProPublica Donate
New Search

New Sps Crossfolds, Llc (d/b/a Radienz Living)

United States See location details

This drug manufacturing facility is registered with the FDA by New Sps Crossfolds, Llc (d/b/a Radienz Living).

Facility Inspection History

The FDA is responsible for inspecting drug manufacturing facilities for violations of good manufacturing practices, such as a lack of documented drug quality testing or contaminated equipment. Below is a timeline of FDA inspections and outcomes for this facility assembled by ProPublica.

Note: ProPublica does not provide medical advice. Stopping your medication, doctors warn, can be dangerous. Please consult your doctor first if you have concerns. Read more
3 Known Inspections

The inspections we were able to locate using available FDA data do not include inspections in advance of the release of a new drug product.

2 Inspections Found Issues

When issues are observed, inspectors usually file an FDA 483 form with citations. In more serious cases, the FDA can issue warning letters or even ban the import of drugs from the facility.

  • Jan 11, 2024
    Jan 11, 2024
    Inspection With Issues

    The FDA found issues but determined the facility can correct them voluntarily.

    In some cases, inspectors may have recommended a different (potentially more serious) classification, but the agency declined to pursue further enforcement at the time.
    View Inspector Notes
    Inspector’s notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection.
    6 citations
    Equipment Design, Size and Location
    Equipment used in the manufacture, processing, packing or holding of drug products is not of appropriate design, of adequate size, and suitably located to facilitate operations for its intended use.
    Written procedures not established/followed
    Written procedures are not established and followed for the cleaning and maintenance of equipment, including utensils, used in the manufacture, processing, packing or holding of a drug product.
    Computer control of master formula records
    Appropriate controls are not exercised over computers or related systems to assure that changes in master production and control records or other records are instituted only by authorized personnel.
    View Inspector Notes
    Inspector’s notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection.
  • Apr 9, 2014
    Apr 9, 2014
    Inspection

    The FDA determined this facility was in an acceptable state.

    This is the best possible outcome for an inspection. The FDA took no compliance action and ProPublica found no issues documented by inspectors.
  • Nov 29, 2010
    Nov 29, 2010
    Inspection With Issues

    The FDA found issues but determined the facility can correct them voluntarily.

    In some cases, inspectors may have recommended a different (potentially more serious) classification, but the agency declined to pursue further enforcement at the time.
    19 citations
    Approve or reject components, products
    The quality control unit lacks the responsibility and authority to reject all drug products.
    Approve or reject procedures or specs
    The quality control unit lacks responsibility to approve and reject all procedures or specifications impacting on the identity, strength, quality, and purity of drug products.
    Written procedures not established/followed
    Written procedures are not established and followed for the cleaning and maintenance of equipment, including utensils, used in the manufacture, processing, packing or holding of a drug product.
    ProPublica was unable to locate a 483 form detailing issues found in this inspection.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Do the Inspection Outcomes Mean?
These are the possible FDA compliance outcomes we highlight:
  • Import alert. This is rare and means drugs from this facility were banned from coming into the U.S. Specifically we are including alerts relating to FDA manufacturing standards for drug products. The agency sometimes exempts certain drugs from import bans, ostensibly to prevent drug shortages.
  • Warning letter. This is a disciplinary tool the FDA uses to lay out significant violations of federal requirements. The company has an opportunity to respond and/or provide its plans to correct the issues. The agency might later issue a “close-out letter” to say it has confirmed that issues raised in a previous warning letter were fixed. But that doesn’t always happen.
  • Unacceptable state of compliance. This means inspectors found serious issues at the facility and the agency ultimately recommended official compliance action. In cases like this, the FDA typically pauses the facility’s pending drug approvals. The agency classifies this as “official action indicated.”
  • Some issues found, but no further FDA action. This is very common. It means the FDA found issues but determined the facility can correct them voluntarily. In some cases, inspectors may have recommended a different (potentially more serious) classification, but the agency declined to pursue further enforcement at the time. The agency classifies this as “voluntary action indicated.”
  • Inspector documented issues. Inspectors can file notes summarizing deficiencies observed during an inspection using a 483 form. In some cases, we’re unable to connect a Form 483 to an FDA inspection designation, but we show that an inspector filed this form, perhaps as part of an inspection that was not included in the public inspection dashboard.
  • Acceptable state. This is common and the best possible outcome for an inspection. This means the FDA took no compliance action and ProPublica found no issues documented by inspectors. That doesn’t always mean no issues turned up. Sometimes, inspectors address concerns with management on site that they believe do not need to be documented on a 483. The agency classifies this as “no action indicated.”
There may be additional communications, including about issues being resolved, that are not reflected in our database because they have not been made public.

How Did ProPublica Connect This Information?
We have written an in-depth methodology, but in short, we connected several FDA databases:
  • The Structured Product Labeling database.
  • The National Drug Code Directory.
  • The Electronic Drug Registration and Listing System.
  • Data from the agency’s inspection dashboard.
  • A spreadsheet of facility addresses we sued the FDA for, which connected them to drug application numbers.
  • Form 483 documents we received from a Freedom of Information Act Request.
ProPublica described the app and the methodology used to build it to the FDA, which did not comment. The agency previously told ProPublica that it doesn’t reveal where drugs are made on inspection reports to protect what it deemed confidential commercial information.

How Do I Report Incorrect Information?
If you work for a manufacturer or otherwise see that information we are displaying may be incorrect, please email [email protected].