Tamper-Evident Packaging Compliance for Food and Pharma Facilities

FDA 21 CFR 211.132 for OTC drugs, FSMA Part 117 preventive controls, Part 121 food defense, and FDA CPG 450.500 acceptable technologies for FDA-regulated facilities.

Last updated: May 5, 2026

Quick Reference

Which rule applies to your product:

OTC drug for retail shelves

21 CFR 211.132. Tamper-evident feature plus a labeling statement that survives breach. Capsules need an additional sealing technology.

FDA-registered food facility

No specific tamper-evidence format mandated. FSMA Part 117 covers preventive controls and packaging integrity. Part 121 covers a written food defense plan where finished packaging is often an actionable process step.

Liquid oral hygiene or vaginal cosmetic product

21 CFR 700.25. Same indicator-or-barrier pattern as the OTC drug rule, narrow cosmetic scope.

Contact lens solution or solution tablet

21 CFR 800.12. Regulated as a medical device, with the same tamper-evidence pattern as the drug rule.

Meat, poultry, or processed egg product

USDA FSIS regulates these under 9 CFR, not FDA. This guide does not cover USDA tamper-evidence rules.

Overview

Tamper-evident packaging is a regulatory term, not a marketing one. FDA defines it precisely in 21 CFR 211.132: a package with one or more indicators or barriers to entry that, if breached or missing, can reasonably be expected to provide visible evidence to consumers that tampering has occurred. Three parallel FDA rules use the same pattern for OTC drugs, certain cosmetics, and contact lens solutions. The food side runs on FSMA: Part 117 governs general packaging integrity through preventive controls, and Part 121 governs intentional adulteration through a written food defense plan.

Buyers landing on this page usually fall into one of three roles. Pharma QA engineers verifying a 211.132 design. Food-plant facility managers writing a food defense plan or qualifying packaging suppliers under Part 117 supply-chain controls. Contract packagers and brand owners trying to confirm which regime applies to a product line.

The guide below covers each regime, the technologies FDA recognizes, the labeling requirement, and the adjacent standards and disambiguations buyers routinely confuse with tamper-evidence (DSCSA serialization, child-resistant closures, USDA FSIS authority, the criminal Anti-Tampering Act).

Why It Matters

The current regulatory framework grew out of a series of consumer-product tampering incidents starting in 1982. Understanding how it got here makes the structure of the rule easier to read.

1982: Chicago Tylenol murders

In late September and early October 1982, seven people in the Chicago area died after taking Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules laced with potassium cyanide. Johnson and Johnson recalled approximately 31 million bottles. On November 5, 1982, FDA published an emergency final rule at 47 FR 50442, establishing tamper-resistant packaging requirements for OTC drugs and certain cosmetics.

1983: Federal Anti-Tampering Act

Congress followed with Public Law 98-127, codified at 18 U.S.C. 1365. Consumer-product tampering became a federal crime carrying penalties up to life imprisonment in death-resulting cases. This is criminal law administered by the Department of Justice, separate from the FDA regulatory rule.

1986: Yonkers cyanide death and the capsule amendment

In February 1986, Diane Elsroth died in Yonkers, New York after taking cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules purchased in Bronxville. FDA concluded that the 1982 carton-and-bottle features were insufficient when an adulterant could be inserted into an individual capsule undetectably. On February 2, 1989, FDA amended 21 CFR 211.132 at 54 FR 5228 to require sealing of two-piece hard gelatin capsules in addition to the outer packaging. Compliance deadline was February 2, 1990. Most major brands converted to caplets rather than install capsule-sealing equipment.

1998: Rename to "tamper-evident"

The 1998 amendment package at 63 FR 59463 renamed "tamper-resistant" to "tamper-evident" throughout the regulation. The shift acknowledged that no package can fully resist tampering by a determined attacker. The achievable goal is visible evidence to the consumer that tampering occurred. The amendment also strengthened the identifying-characteristic requirement and required identification of capsule-sealing technologies in the labeling. Compliance deadline was November 6, 2000.

Why this history matters for your design

Two takeaways. First, the regulation is performance-based, not technology-prescriptive. FDA does not certify packaging features. The manufacturer demonstrates that the chosen feature meets the rule. Second, the labeling statement is non-trivial: it must reference the identifying characteristic and remain on the package even if the seal is broken. Inspection-day failures are usually about labeling placement, not the seal itself.

OTC Drugs: 21 CFR 211.132

21 CFR 211.132 sits in Title 21, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 211 (current Good Manufacturing Practice for finished pharmaceuticals), Subpart G (Packaging and Labeling Control). It is the centerpiece tamper-evidence rule and the model for the cosmetic and contact-lens analogues. View the current text on eCFR.

211.132(a) Statutory authority

A non-exempt OTC drug product for retail sale that is not packaged in a tamper-evident package, or not properly labeled under this section, is adulterated under section 501 of the FD&C Act, misbranded under section 502, or both. This is the enforcement hook. Violations expose the manufacturer or packer to seizure, injunction, recall, and warning letters.

211.132(b)(1) Operative requirements

Each manufacturer and packer who packages an OTC drug product for retail sale must package it in a tamper-evident package if the product is accessible to the public while held for sale. The package must satisfy four criteria:

Indicator or barrier: at least one feature that, if breached or missing, gives visible evidence to the consumer.
Distinctive by design: the feature cannot be duplicated with commonly available materials or processes.
Identifying characteristic: a pattern, name, registered trademark, logo, or picture that identifies the manufacturer or product.
Survives reasonable handling: the feature remains intact through manufacture, distribution, and retail display.

The tamper-evident feature can be on the immediate container, the closure, a secondary carton, or any combination. One feature is enough for non-capsule products. Capsules need additional sealing per 211.132(c).

211.132(b)(2) Exemptions

Four product categories are exempt:

Dermatological products: applied externally to intact skin, not ingested.
Dentifrice products: toothpaste and similar products, largely expectorated rather than swallowed.
Insulin products: historically a prescription-only product subject to physician oversight at the time of original rulemaking.
Lozenge products: typically individually wrapped, not amenable to certain tamper-evidence technologies.

Cosmetics with drug claims (sunscreens, antiperspirants, anti-dandruff shampoos, fluoride toothpaste with caries-prevention claims) are OTC drugs and are not automatically exempt by virtue of being applied to skin. FDA evaluates the product's primary intended use. When in doubt, treat as in scope.

211.132(c) Two-piece hard gelatin capsules

Two-piece hard gelatin capsule products covered by the section must be sealed using an acceptable tamper-evident technology in addition to the outer packaging. In practice this means banding (a polymer band fused around the capsule joint), sealing fluid (a low-viscosity solvent that fuses the cap and body at the seam), sonic welding, or a comparable thermal seal. See the Capsule-Specific Rules section below for trade-offs.

211.132(d) Labeling statement

Each retail package must bear a statement that identifies all tamper-evident features and any capsule-sealing technologies, placed so the statement remains on the package even if the feature is breached or missing. If the feature uses an identifying characteristic, the statement must reference it. A common compliant phrasing: "Do not use if printed neck band is broken or missing." The statement appears on the bottle, not on the band itself, so a tamperer cannot remove the warning along with the broken seal. See the Labeling Requirements section below for placement detail.

Who is responsible

Both manufacturers and packers, per the operative text of 211.132(b). Contract packagers do not get a pass, and brand owners remain responsible for the finished retail unit. Document your design rationale, your validation records for capsule sealing if applicable, and your label proofs showing the 211.132(d) statement.

Cosmetics and Contact Lens

Two narrow rules parallel 211.132 outside the OTC drug space.

21 CFR 700.25: Cosmetics

The cosmetic rule applies only to two product categories: liquid oral hygiene products (mouthwashes, fluoride rinses, oral antiseptics in liquid form) and vaginal products (douches, vaginal cleansing products). All other cosmetics (skincare, color cosmetics, fragrance, hair care) are outside scope and have no federal tamper-evident requirement. FDA narrowed the scope this way because these are the cosmetic categories absorbed mucosally or ingested incidentally, creating a public-health rationale comparable to OTC drugs. View the current text on eCFR.

21 CFR 800.12: Contact lens solutions

Contact lens solutions and tablets used to prepare solutions are regulated as medical devices, not drugs. Contact lenses themselves are devices under FD&C Act section 520. FDA treats accessory solutions as device components rather than ophthalmic drugs, which places the tamper-evident rule in Subchapter H (Medical Devices) at 21 CFR 800.12 rather than in Part 211. The technical pattern mirrors 211.132: indicator or barrier, visible evidence on breach, labeling statement that survives breach. View the current text on eCFR.

Food Facilities: FSMA Part 117 and Part 121

The Food Safety Modernization Act (Public Law 111-353, January 4, 2011) is the most significant overhaul of FDA food safety since the FFDCA of 1938. Two FSMA rules touch packaging integrity for human food: Part 117 (preventive controls) and Part 121 (intentional adulteration). FSMA does not prescribe a specific tamper-evident format. The rules are performance-based.

Part 117: Preventive Controls for Human Food

Codified at 21 CFR Part 117, final rule published September 17, 2015 (80 FR 55908). Implements FSMA Section 103. The rule has eight subparts:

Subpart A: general provisions, definitions, exemptions, qualified facility attestations.
Subpart B: current Good Manufacturing Practice (modernized successor to the old Part 110 cGMPs). Covers personnel, plant, equipment, sanitary operations, processes and controls, warehousing, and defect action levels.
Subpart C: Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARPC). Written food safety plan, hazard analysis, preventive controls (process, allergen, sanitation, supply-chain), monitoring, corrective actions, verification, validation, recall plan.
Subpart D: modified requirements for qualified facilities.
Subpart E: withdrawal of qualified facility exemption.
Subpart F: records (retention generally 2 years).
Subpart G: supply-chain program for hazards requiring a supply-chain-applied control.
Subpart H: reanalysis requirement.

Where packaging integrity surfaces in Part 117: 21 CFR 117.40 (equipment and utensils) requires materials and workmanship that protect against contamination and allergen cross-contact. 21 CFR 117.80(c)(2) requires food-contact surfaces and packaging not to transfer contaminants. 21 CFR 117.93 (warehousing and distribution) requires protection of container integrity during storage and transport. Part 117 does not specifically require tamper-evident packaging, but tamper-evident features routinely show up as a verified control under supply-chain programs or as part of the food defense plan.

Part 117 exemption thresholds

Several categories of facilities are subject to modified requirements or full exemption under 21 CFR 117.5:

Qualified facility: very small business OR direct sales to qualified end-users (consumers, restaurants, or retail food establishments in the same state or within 275 miles) exceeded sales to all other purchasers AND total annual food sales averaged less than $500,000 (adjusted for inflation), based on the preceding 3-year average.
Very small business: averaging less than $1,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) per year in human food sales plus market value of food held without sale during the preceding 3-year period.
Other categorical exemptions: juice HACCP (Part 120), seafood HACCP (Part 123), low-acid canned foods (Part 113), acidified foods (Part 114), dietary supplements covered by Part 111, alcoholic beverage facilities, certain on-farm and storage operations.

Subpart B cGMPs apply even where Subparts C and G are exempted, with limited exceptions for dietary supplements (covered under Part 111) and qualifying alcohol facilities.

Preventive Controls Qualified Individual (PCQI)

21 CFR 117.180 requires a Preventive Controls Qualified Individual to prepare or oversee preparation of the food safety plan, validate process preventive controls, review records, and perform reanalysis. Qualification is achieved by completing training at least equivalent to the FSPCA (Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance) standardized curriculum (the recognized 20-hour course delivered by NSF, SCS Global, AFDO-affiliated lead instructors, and others) or by being qualified through job experience.

Part 121: Intentional Adulteration (food defense)

Codified at 21 CFR Part 121, final rule published May 27, 2016 (81 FR 34165). Implements FSMA Section 106. Requires owners and operators of facilities required to register under FD&C section 415 to prepare and implement a written food defense plan. "Intentional adulteration" in Part 121 means acts intended to cause wide-scale public health harm, primarily terrorism or insider sabotage. It is distinct from economically motivated adulteration (food fraud), which is handled under Part 117 hazard analysis.

The food defense plan must include:

Vulnerability assessment identifying significant vulnerabilities and actionable process steps.
Mitigation strategies at each actionable process step.
Mitigation strategies management: monitoring procedures, corrective actions, verification.
Reanalysis at least every 3 years and on triggering events.
Training and records for the Food Defense Qualified Individual (FDQI).

Vulnerability assessment: three elements or KAT

Under 21 CFR 121.130(a), a facility evaluates each point, step, or procedure against three elements:

Severity and scale of potential public-health impact if a contaminant were added.
Degree of physical access to the product.
Ability of an attacker to successfully contaminate the product.

As an alternative under 121.130(b), a facility may identify actionable process steps using the Key Activity Type approach. FDA derived four KATs from analysis of more than 50 vulnerability assessments where these activities consistently ranked as the most vulnerable:

Bulk liquid receiving and loading.
Liquid storage and handling (storage tanks or reusable containers not sealed with tamper-evident packaging).
Secondary ingredient handling (additions to the product stream after manipulation by human contact).
Mixing and similar activities (mixing, grinding, homogenizing, coating).

The KAT for liquid storage explicitly carves out containers sealed with tamper-evident packaging. Sealed tamper-evident containers reduce the vulnerability profile by regulatory design. Finished packaging lines are commonly identified as actionable process steps because they are the last control point before product enters distribution.

Part 121 exemption thresholds

Per 21 CFR 121.5:

Very small business: for Part 121 specifically, less than $10,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) per year in human food sales plus market value of food held without sale, preceding 3-year average. This is ten times the Part 117 very-small-business threshold of $1 million.
Holding of food: exempt except for liquid storage tanks.
Packing, repacking, labeling, or relabeling where the container directly contacting the food remains intact.
Animal food, alcoholic beverages at qualifying facilities.
Certain on-farm and off-farm packing or holding operations for specified commodities by small or very small businesses.

FDA Food Defense Plan Builder

FDA publishes a free desktop tool called the Food Defense Plan Builder (FDPB), currently version 2.0. It walks facilities through facility info, product and process descriptions, vulnerability assessment, mitigation strategies, monitoring, corrective actions, verification, and supporting documents. Use is voluntary and FDA does not track or receive plans built with it. Available at fda.gov/food/food-defense-tools.

Acceptable Technologies (FDA CPG Sec. 450.500)

FDA Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 450.500 enumerates the packaging technologies FDA considers acceptable for 21 CFR 211.132. The CPG is enforcement guidance binding on FDA staff rather than on regulated industry, but it is the de-facto reference. Use of any listed technology does not by itself constitute compliance: the feature must be properly designed, applied, and labeled. Read the current CPG on FDA.gov.

Technology	How it provides evidence	Common use
Film wrappers	Transparent film around entire container, must be cut or torn to access	OTC bottles, blister cartons
Blister or strip packs	Individual dosage units sealed in plastic with foil or paper backing, torn or broken to access	Tablets, capsules, lozenges (for non-exempt drug products)
Bubble packs	Product sealed to display card, plastic must be torn or broken	Single-dose products, devices
Heat-shrink bands	Band on closure that cannot be removed and reapplied without visible damage. Tape-sealed bands relying solely on adhesive do not qualify.	Bottle closures across many product categories
Foil, paper, or plastic pouches	End seams cannot be separated and resealed without visible evidence	Single-dose drug products, sterile medical devices
Container-mouth inner seals	Foil, plastic, or paper bonded to container mouth (induction or pressure-sensitive). Must be torn or broken.	Bottled OTC drugs, food, supplements
Tape seals	Acceptable only if specially designed so adhesive cannot release and reapply without visible evidence. Ordinary tape does not qualify.	Cartons, secondary packaging
Breakable caps	Cap breaks away or leaves a portion attached when removed	Liquid pharmaceuticals, beverages
Sealed metal or plastic tubes	Bottom heat-sealed (plastic blind-end) or crimped (metal); mouth or blind end must be punctured	Topicals, ointments (note dermatological exemption may apply)
Sealed cartons	Paperboard cartons sealed by gluing end flaps generally do not qualify; advanced sealed paperboard with frangible features may	Secondary packaging, multi-pack
Aerosol containers	Considered inherently tamper-evident due to design and pressurization	Topical sprays, inhalers, antiseptics
All-metal or composite cans	Top and bottom joined so they cannot be pulled apart and reassembled without visible evidence	Bulk OTC products, certain food categories

The "properly applied" caveat

An induction inner seal that is misapplied (low-power weld, contaminated foil, off-center placement) fails the rule even though the technology is on the list. CPG 450.500 emphasizes design, application, and labeling. FDA inspections typically expect: written packaging procedures (211.130), seal specifications, in-process inspection records, and complaint records for breached units found in the field.

Capsule-Specific Rules: 211.132(c)

Two-piece hard gelatin capsules carry an additional sealing requirement beyond the outer-package indicator. The 1989 amendment at 54 FR 5228 was driven by the 1986 Yonkers cyanide death: an attacker could insert a contaminant into a single capsule undetectably even when the carton and bottle were intact. The practical sealing technologies are:

Banding

A polymer band fused around the capsule joint. Mechanically robust and visually obvious. Slows line throughput and adds equipment. The band itself typically carries a printed identifying characteristic to satisfy the labeling rule.

Sealing fluid (LEMS)

A low-viscosity solvent (often called Liquid Encapsulation Microspray Sealing or LEMS) that fuses the cap and body at the seam. Faster than banding and integrates into existing capsule lines, but requires careful process control on solvent dose and dwell time. Validation records are inspection-critical.

Comparable thermal seals

Sonic welding and similar thermal-bonding technologies are also acceptable where validated to produce a tamper-evident seal that satisfies the same visible-evidence test.

Why most brands moved to caplets

The 1989 amendment effectively forced capsule manufacturers to add sealing equipment or convert to caplets. Most major OTC brands chose caplets, which do not need 211.132(c) sealing because they are not two-piece hard gelatin capsules. Soft-gel capsules are also outside 211.132(c) scope by virtue of their construction.

Labeling Requirements: 211.132(d)

The labeling statement is the most-cited 211.132 problem area. The rule has three parts:

Identifies all features: the statement must name every tamper-evident feature on the package and any capsule-sealing technology used.
Survives breach: placement must be on a part of the package that remains after the feature is breached or missing. This prevents a tamperer from removing the warning along with the broken seal.
References identifying characteristic: if the feature uses a logo, name, registered trademark, pattern, or picture, the statement must reference it so the consumer can verify both the seal and the identifier.

Compliant phrasing examples

Bottle with shrink band: "Do not use if printed neck band is broken or missing." The statement appears on the bottle itself. The neck band carries the printed identifying characteristic.
Bottle with induction inner seal: "Sealed for your protection. Do not use if foil seal printed [BRAND] is broken or missing." The statement is on the bottle label, the seal carries the brand identifier.
Capsule product with banded capsules: "Do not use if capsule sealed with [BRAND] band is broken. Do not use if printed bottle seal is broken or missing." Both features must be identified and the statement must remain after either is breached.

Common inspection findings include: statement printed on the seal itself rather than on a surface that survives breach, statement that references "seal" generically without identifying which feature, missing capsule-sealing identification on capsule products, identifying characteristic on the seal that is not referenced in the statement.

Adjacent Standards

Several non-FDA standards bear on tamper-evident packaging in practice. None are required by FDA, but they show up routinely in supplier qualification, third-party audits, and customer specifications.

USP packaging-integrity chapters

United States Pharmacopeia (USP) general chapters set compendial container and test standards for pharmaceutical packaging. The chapter text is paywalled (USP-NF subscription); the scope is publicly available.

USP <659> Packaging and Storage Requirements: parent chapter setting general container definitions and storage condition language. Defines terms such as well-closed, tight, light-resistant, and hermetic. Drives storage statements in monographs.
USP <671> Containers, Performance Testing: performance tests for containers used with oral solid and oral liquid dosage forms. Test categories include moisture vapor transmission, light transmission, and container leak testing. A revised version of the chapter has an official date of December 1, 2025.
USP <1207> Sterile Product Packaging Integrity Evaluation: framework chapter (informational, numbered above 1000) covering package integrity for sterile pharmaceutical packaging. Distinguishes deterministic methods (helium leak, vacuum decay, high-voltage leak detection) from probabilistic methods (microbial ingress, dye penetration, bubble test).

Specific pass/fail thresholds in any of these chapters require re-verification against the licensed USP-NF text before relying on them.

ASTM packaging-integrity test methods

ASTM standards are paywalled but the existence, scope, and intent are public. Common methods relevant to tamper-evident packaging:

ASTM F1929: Standard Test Method for Detecting Seal Leaks in Porous Medical Packaging by Dye Penetration. Workhorse seal-leak test for sterile barrier systems.
ASTM F2096: Detecting Gross Leaks in Packaging by Internal Pressurization (Bubble Test). Production-line gross-leak screening.
ASTM F88: Seal Strength of Flexible Barrier Materials. Tensile-pull seal strength reported as force per unit width.
ASTM D3198: Application and Removal Torque of Threaded or Lug-Style Closures. Application torque drives both child-resistance and tamper-evidence performance for shrink-band and breakaway-band closures.
ASTM D4169: Performance Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems. Distribution simulation: vibration, shock, compression. Validates that a tamper-evident package survives transit without false-positive actuation.

Food-safety management systems (ISO, FSSC, SQF, BRCGS)

Many food companies use a Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) recognized scheme as the umbrella for compliance. FDA does not require certification but accepts these schemes as supporting documentation for FSMA preventive controls.

ISO 22000: international standard for Food Safety Management Systems. Combines HACCP with the ISO management-system structure.
FSSC 22000: certification scheme built on ISO 22000 plus sector prerequisites (ISO/TS 22002 series). Includes explicit food defense and food fraud requirements.
SQF (Safe Quality Food): GFSI-recognized scheme operated by SQFI (a division of FMI). Heavy adoption in North American retail and foodservice supply chains.
BRCGS: Brand Reputation Compliance Global Standards. Strong UK and European retailer adoption; a separate Packaging Materials standard exists alongside the Food Safety standard.

Tamper-evident packaging in these schemes is typically addressed via food defense and TACCP (Threat Assessment Critical Control Points) modules.

What This Is Not

Buyers routinely confuse tamper-evident packaging with four other regimes. Each is a distinct legal authority with separate compliance requirements.

DSCSA serialization is not tamper-evidence

The Drug Supply Chain Security Act (Public Law 113-54, 2013, codified at FD&C Act sections 581 to 585) requires unit-level traceability for prescription drugs through a 2D barcode product identifier (NDC plus serial number, lot, expiration date). DSCSA does not mandate tamper-evident packaging. Some manufacturers print the DSCSA serialization label onto the same closure or seal that satisfies 211.132, but that is a packaging-design choice, not a regulatory equivalence.

Child-resistant packaging is a separate CPSC regime

Child-resistant packaging is governed by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (15 U.S.C. 1471 and following) and 16 CFR 1700, administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. A package can be both child-resistant and tamper-evident (an induction-sealed bottle with a push-and-turn closure is the canonical case), and most OTC analgesics are. Compliance with one does not satisfy the other.

USDA FSIS regulates meat, poultry, and processed eggs

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service regulates meat (Federal Meat Inspection Act), poultry (Poultry Products Inspection Act), and processed egg products (Egg Products Inspection Act), codified at 9 CFR. Tamper-evidence and packaging integrity for those products fall under FSIS labeling and inspection authority, not FDA Part 117 or Part 121. Dual-jurisdiction facilities are governed by FSIS Directive 5730.1. Meat-packers should consult 9 CFR Parts 317 and 381 and FSIS food defense guidance, not this guide.

The Federal Anti-Tampering Act is criminal law against the tamperer

18 U.S.C. 1365, enacted as Public Law 98-127 in October 1983, criminalizes tampering or attempting to tamper with consumer products with reckless disregard for risk of death or bodily injury. Penalties run up to ten years for tampering, twenty years if serious bodily injury results, and life imprisonment if death results. This is a Department of Justice criminal statute against the tamperer, not a regulatory requirement on packagers. It sits alongside 21 CFR 211.132 but is administered separately. View the text at Cornell Legal Information Institute.

Speccing tamper-evident materials for an FDA-regulated facility?

Tell us about your product, packaging format, and applicable regulations. We'll be in touch to discuss options. Typical turnaround: one business day.

or call 714-248-6555 · email partners@usmadesupply.com

Frequently Asked Questions

Does my product need tamper-evident packaging?

It depends on the product category. OTC drug products offered for retail sale and accessible to the public need a 211.132 feature, with four exemptions (dermatologic, dentifrice, insulin, lozenge). Liquid oral hygiene and vaginal cosmetic products need a 700.25 feature. Contact lens solutions need an 800.12 feature. Food facilities under FSMA do not have a specific format mandated, but Part 117 covers packaging integrity in general and Part 121 addresses intentional adulteration where finished packaging is often an actionable process step.

What counts as a tamper-evident feature?

Per 21 CFR 211.132(b)(1), any indicator or barrier that, if breached or missing, gives visible evidence to the consumer. The feature must be distinctive by design (not duplicable with commonly available materials) and must include or reference an identifying characteristic such as a pattern, name, registered trademark, logo, or picture. FDA Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 450.500 lists twelve acceptable technology categories including shrink bands, induction inner seals, blister packs, sealed pouches, breakable caps, and aerosol containers.

Are dermatological and topical products really exempt?

Topical dermatological OTC products are exempt from 21 CFR 211.132 because they are not ingested. The exemption is narrow. Cosmetics with drug claims (sunscreens, antiperspirants, anti-dandruff shampoos, fluoride toothpaste with caries-prevention claims) are OTC drugs and are not automatically exempt by virtue of being applied to skin. FDA evaluates the product's primary intended use. When in doubt, treat as in scope.

What is the difference between FSMA Part 117 and Part 121?

Part 117 addresses unintentional hazards (biological, chemical, physical, allergen, economically motivated adulteration) through a written food safety plan with hazard analysis, preventive controls, monitoring, and verification. Part 121 addresses intentional adulteration meant to cause wide-scale public health harm through a separate written food defense plan with vulnerability assessment and mitigation strategies. Different plans, different qualified individuals (PCQI for Part 117, FDQI for Part 121), different records.

Is tamper-evident packaging required by FSMA?

No FSMA rule prescribes a specific tamper-evident format. Part 117 requires packaging that protects against contamination through cGMPs and supply-chain controls. Part 121 is performance-based and recognizes tamper-evident sealing as a relevant mitigation. The Part 121 Key Activity Type for liquid storage and handling explicitly carves out containers sealed with tamper-evident packaging, meaning sealed tamper-evident containers reduce the vulnerability profile by regulatory design.

What about prescription drugs?

21 CFR 211.132 applies only to OTC human drug products offered for retail sale. Prescription drug packaging integrity is governed by other Part 211 cGMP requirements (211.130 packaging operations, 211.137 expiration dating) and by DSCSA serialization at the unit level. Many Rx packagers still use tamper-evident features as a quality measure, but the specific 211.132 rule does not apply.

How does tamper-evident packaging interact with child-resistant packaging?

They are separate regimes. Tamper-evidence is FDA under 21 CFR 211.132. Child-resistance is CPSC under 16 CFR 1700 (Poison Prevention Packaging Act). Most OTC analgesics use closures that satisfy both: an induction-sealed inner liner for tamper-evidence plus a push-and-turn outer cap for child-resistance. Compliance with one does not satisfy the other.

Is DSCSA the same as tamper-evident packaging?

No. The Drug Supply Chain Security Act is unit-level traceability for prescription drugs via a 2D barcode product identifier (NDC plus serial number, lot, expiration). Tamper-evident packaging under 21 CFR 211.132 is a separate regulatory obligation requiring an indicator or barrier that gives visible evidence of breach. The two are sometimes implemented on the same physical feature, but they are separate legal requirements with separate compliance records.

Related Resources

Sealants for Food Processing & Cold Storage Facilities →Fire Extinguisher Requirements for Food Processing Facilities →All Industry Guides →

Was this guide helpful?