Why Your Importer’s FSVP Warning is Your Problem

Many exporters treat an FSVP warning letter as someone else’s problem. Because the letter is addressed to the importer—not the supplier—it looks like a US-side administrative glitch that has nothing to do with the tea itself.

The short answer is two facts:

1. Under the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, the legal duty sits with the US importer, not the foreign supplier.
2. The evidence that importer still has to show the FDA — hazard analyses, process controls, verification records — comes from the supplier.

On paper, that is true. In practice, it is a dangerous assumption: while the legal burden sits with the buyer, the actual evidence required to satisfy that burden sits with you.

What FSVP actually is

The Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) is a legal mandate placed on the US importer. Under the FDA’s FSVP rule, the “importer” is the US owner or consignee of the food at the time of entry (or the US agent of the foreign owner if no consignee exists).

This party—not the exporter—is responsible for risk-based verification to ensure the food meets US safety and labeling standards. The rule took effect January 26, 2016, and is codified at 21 CFR Part 1, Subpart L.

Easterlies view — The FDA does not audit the exporter directly for FSVP, but they audit the importer’s file. If that file is empty, the importer simply stops buying from you to protect their own license.

What an FSVP is built from

An importer cannot complete an FSVP in a vacuum. The compliance file is built from:

• Hazard analyses
• Process-control information
• Verification records

Almost all of this material originates at the source: your factory’s food safety plan, your pesticide and heavy-metal test results, and your process documentation.

The importer’s compliance file is only as strong as the paperwork you provide. When that file is thin, the importer’s risk increases. More importantly, a thin file is the first thing a buyer’s QA team flags before deciding whether to place the next order.

The 2026 Enforcement Trend

FDA enforcement of FSVP has accelerated this year. Food Safety News, which tracks these actions, reported in May that warning letters to food manufacturers, sellers, and importers are “trending upward.”

Three subsequent batches of published letters confirm this surge:

• June 22, 2026: Four importers in California, Delaware, Texas, and Virginia were cited for failures involving produce and dairy.
• July 6, 2026: Six importers across five states were cited. This batch specifically named tea, alongside produce and sauces.
• July 20, 2026: Three more importers in Florida, Iowa, and Texas were cited for failing to develop an FSVP entirely.

Three enforcement waves in less than a month, with tea explicitly mentioned. While the full text of these letters is not yet public, the pattern is clear: the FDA is actively auditing FSVP files right now.

Whose duty, whose paperwork

To be clear: Easterlies does not sign compliance documents on a client’s behalf. We coordinate the specialists who do: the customs broker for clearance, the accredited lab for testing, and the counsel who reviews an importer’s FSVP file during high-stakes disputes. We are not the importer, the certifier, the lab, or the legal counsel, and we never issue approvals or place orders for clients.

Our role is to ensure the paperwork an importer needs already exists—in a format their compliance team can actually use—long before the FDA asks for it.

Easterlies view — An FSVP warning letter will always name the importer. However, the difference between a continuing partnership and a cancelled contract is whether your buyer’s file already contains your current hazard analysis, latest lab results, and clear process documentation. If it doesn’t, the letter still won’t carry your name—but the next order might not either.

Practical steps for your documentation

• Update your hazard analysis. Ensure it is written for a US importer’s team to use. Avoid filing it away as Chinese-only documentation without a comprehensive English summary.
• Tighten your lab results. Pesticide-residue and heavy-metal tests must be dated, tied to a specific batch, and issued by a recognized lab. A generic “results on file” claim is a red flag, not evidence. (See our guide on making a Certificate of Analysis credible).
• Anticipate the request. When a supplier questionnaire stalls because the supporting evidence isn’t ready, the buyer sees “risk” instead of a “scheduling delay.” This case study illustrates how that friction happens.

If you aren’t sure if your current documentation would survive an FDA audit of your importer’s file, it is worth a conversation now. We will tell you honestly if you’re ready.

For how FSVP sits next to FDA facility registration and California Prop 65 — three regimes that get treated as one — see FDA facility registration vs. FSVP vs. Prop 65.