Re: FDA (b)anality

Subject: Re: FDA (b)anality
From: Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>
To: Bill Swallow <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:25:01 -0800

Government inspections and audits being what they are, it might be years
before anyone noticed, and then one morning their product recall would be
on CNN.

Gene Kim-Eng

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Bill Swallow <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>wrote:

> Isn't it your regulatory affairs guy's job to decide these things so
> your company is compliant with the industry and the laws surrounding
> it? If the FDA insists you use the statement, then you likely need to
> use it as-provided. Any changes would need to be approved by the FDA
> else they could find your company at fault.

Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @


FDA (b)anality: From: Chris Morton
Re: FDA (b)anality: From: Bill Swallow

Previous by Author: Re: software is part of the device (Was "FDA (b)anality")
Next by Author: Re: FDA (b)anality
Previous by Thread: Re: FDA (b)anality
Next by Thread: RE: FDA (b)anality

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads