LEGAL ACTION AGAINST TFDA– SEEKING RETRACTION CAMPO RESEARCH’S NAME FROM TFDA’S WEBSITE, AS THESOURCE OF THE SUDAN IV CONTAMINATION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AS NO RESPONSE FROM TFDA !!!
March 5, 2026
GROUNDS FOR REFUTATION & RETRACTION:
- Questionable source of supply and chain of custody for alleged contamination
- Six batch numbers as alleged by TFDA tested negative for Sudan IV by LC-MS/MS method
- Radiocarbon (C14) Testing on Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai – confirms natural source
- Campo’s batches from 2024 to 2025 tested Negative for Sudan I, II, III, IV, and 13 prohibited colourants
- Adulteration or Contamination by EHO (Third Party Supplier)
- EHO’s rebottling, relabeling, and reselling without Campo’s knowledge or authorization
- Lack of Procedural Fairness in TFDA’s investigation
- TFDA’s findings and naming Campo as source of contamination based on unsubstantiated claims
- Further Support of Deliberate Addition or Tampering of Campo’s Product
Please see below our Canadian lawyer’s letter dated February 11, 2026 to TFDA (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration)
JOSEPHIINE V S CHESTER LL.B. J.D. LL.M.
Barrister & Solicitor
JOSEPHIINE V LAW FIRM
10 Milner Business Court, Suite 444
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1B 3C6
Tel: (1) 416. 546.7399 Fax: (1) 416.546.7339
Email: mail@jvlawfirm.ca
February 11, 2026
Delivered via Registered Post and Email
Taiwan Food and Drug Administration
No.109, Ln. 130, Sec. 1, Academia Rd.,
Nangang Dist., Taipei City 115, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Attention: Mr. Chih-Kang Chiang Director General
Dear Sir/Madam:
RE:
1) Refutation of TFDA’s Finding of CI 26105 (Sudan IV) in Cosmetic Raw Material Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai (seized from EHO Company Ltd), as sourced to be from Campo Research Pte Ltd. (Corporation in Singapore).
2) Remove Campo Research’s name from TFDA website, as the source of the Sudan IV contamination
Our File Number: 26I032
We are the solicitors for Campo Research Pte. Ltd., a corporation in Singapore. We have been
engaged by our client to communicate with your office with respect to the above matter. Our client
formally refutes the findings recently published by the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration
(TFDA) regarding the alleged presence of CI 26105 (Sudan IV) in the cosmetic raw material
identified as Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai. TFDA tested six batches, which
are 2025-01-13, 2025-02-18, 2025-10-10, 2024-03-19, 2024-10-04, and 2025-06-17.
As per TFDA’s communication, testing was conducted on six batch numbers, allegedly sourced
from Campo Research. However, it is critical to clarify that the samples in question were not
obtained directly from Campo Research, but rather collected from a third-party entity, EHO
Company Ltd (“EHO Co.” or “EHO”). Campo Research had no involvement in the selection,
handling, or transfer of these samples, and was not notified prior to or during the collection process.
_________________________________
1 2025-01-13, 2025-02-18, 2025-10-10, 2024-03-19, 2024-10-04, and 2025-06-17.
There was no verification done as to whether these samples were in fact in their original form and integrity, absent of any form of adulteration or tampering by EHO Co.
Six batch numbers referred in TFDA’s email tested negative by LC-MS/MS method
Our client, Campo Research, has conducted comprehensive and independent analyses of the
relevant batch numbers using the validated Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry
(LC-MS/MS) method. All results unequivocally indicate the absence of CI 26105 (Sudan IV) in
Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai. These findings are consistent across multiple tests
and fully documented. Considering the negative results from our client’s own rigorous testing done
by an independent accredited laboratory in Singapore, we must express our client’s concern
regarding the integrity of the samples tested by TFDA. Test Results for the 6 batches2, showing
negative for Sudan IV, are enclosed for your review. Please note that the test results show
negative for Sudan I, II, III, IV, and 13 prohibited colourants.
Radiocarbon (C14) Testing on Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai
Our client’s cosmetic raw material is derived entirely from natural sources, and its composition
reflects our client’s commitment to purity and transparency. Every component originates from plant-based inputs, and no synthetic chemicals, petrochemical derivatives, or artificial additives are used at any stage of production. This ensures that the material aligns with the growing demand for clean, naturally sourced ingredients in modern cosmetic formulations.
To validate the authenticity of natural origin of Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai, our
client conducted, through an accredited laboratory in Florida, USA, radiocarbon C14 testing, a
recognized analytical method used to distinguish biobased carbon from synthetic petrochemical
carbon. This test measures the percentage of carbon originating from renewable biological sources— such as plants or other natural by-products versus carbon derived from fossil fuels. A result of 100% biobased carbon indicates that a material is sourced entirely from natural, renewable inputs.
The test result for Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai confirms that it is 99% natural,
demonstrating an exceptionally high level of biobased carbon content. This provides strong
scientific assurance that our client’s cosmetic ingredient is plant derived and free from synthetic
chemical contamination. These findings reinforce the integrity of our client’s sourcing and
manufacturing practices and offer confidence in the natural quality of the material. Please see
attached test result of Radiocarbon (C14) testing of Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai
Yenai, showing it is 99% natural.
Batches from 2024 to 2025 tested Negative for Sudan I, II, III, IV, and 13 prohibited colourants
Our client has conducted comprehensive testing on 2024 and 2025 batches of Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai using LC-MS/MS method Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai for Sudan I, II, III, IV, and 13 prohibited colourants through an accredited laboratory in Singapore, and all results are negative.We have attached below the link to download the test reports for 2024 to 2025 batches, further confirming our client’s rigorous quality assurance. This indicates that any adulteration of Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai likely originated from suppliers, intermediaries, or final brand manufacturers. The situation was further aggravated
__________________________________________
2 Batches 2025-01-13, 2025-02-18, 2025-10-10, 2024-03-19, 2024-10-04, and 2025-06-17
by overseas media reports, which appear to be extensions of unsubstantiated claims propagated through Chinese social media platforms.
Given the lack of verified testing methods such as FTIR (to confirm the unique identity of any raw material tested whether it belongs to Campo Research) and LC-MS/MS, along with evidence of potential tampering, it is clear that the allegations of Sudan IV contamination are part of a deliberate misinformation campaign targeted at Campo Research. However, our client remains committed to transparency and rigorous quality control in all its operations.
Adulteration or Contamination by EHO
Given that the samples originated from EHO Co. are not from Campo Research’s direct supply chain, we cannot exclude the possibility that adulteration or contamination occurred after the raw material in question left our client’s custody. EHO Co.’s involvement introduces an additional variable that, to our knowledge, has not been adequately considered in TFDA’s assessment. No evidence has been provided to verify the chain of custody or the integrity of the raw materials seized from EHO Co. The provenance and storage conditions of the seized materials have not been substantiated, raising questions regarding potential contamination, adulteration or misidentification, including tampering by EHO Co.
EHO’s rebottling, relabeling, and reselling
Our client’s position is that the contaminated batches were adulterated by EHO Co., when Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai was in EHO’s custody. This is the reason why EHO’s samples have tested positive for Sudan IV and the same samples have tested negative for Campo Research.
It has come to our client’s attention during its recent investigation that EHO Co. Ltd. has been rebottling, relabeling, and reselling Campo Research’s raw materials without our client’s knowledge or explicit authorization. Such actions constitute a direct breach of our client’s supply arrangement, which strictly prohibits any alteration, repackaging, or resale of Campo’s raw material outside of agreed channels and without Campo Research’s written consent. EHO should not have opened and sold in smaller portions Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai or repackaged it in any manner, without our client’s explicit consent and EHO had no such authorization from Campo. Such acts performed by EHO constitute actions that are commercially fraudulent or willfully negligent.
These unauthorized practices raise significant concerns regarding possible tampering, adulteration and/or reconstitution of the cosmetic raw material in question. Our client is particularly concerned by the potential for dilution, concentration, or the introduction of prohibited substances, such as Sudan IV, during EHO’s rebottling, relabeling, and reselling. Campo Research has not provided consent for any such modifications, nor have our client granted authority for EHO to alter the original packaging or labelling of Campo’s raw materials or to resell them in smaller quantities, including re-blending, reconstituting by mixing similar raw materials from other suppliers. Indeed, EHO’s supply arrangement with Campo was limited to purchase and reselling the raw material without any alterations or modifications.
Procedural deficiencies in TFDA’s investigation
We further note significant procedural deficiencies in TFDA’s investigation. To date, Campo Research has not been provided with original analytical reports, detailed chain of custody documentation, or full disclosure of the analytical methodologies and provenance of the samples. The absence of this critical information raises serious questions regarding the reliability and transparency of the findings.
The above shortcomings undermine confidence in the validity of TFDA’s findings and call into question the procedural fairness of the investigation. TFDA has a legal obligation to make decisions in procedurally fair and transparent manner. By immediately alleging and reporting on TFDA’s website that Campo Research was the supplier with Sudan IV contamination, TFDA made serious procedural breaches:
- TFDA failed to act as an unbiased decision-maker – TFDA made its determination totally from EHO Co.’s statements and claims without further verification;
- TFDA failed to provide Campo with reasonable notice – absolutely no notices were received from TFDA prior to reporting on TFDA’s website that Campo Research was the supplier with Sudan IV contamination; and
- TFDA failed to provide Campo the right to be heard, a reasonable opportunity to present Campo’s points of view, respond to allegations presented by TFDA. In addition, TFDA failed to hear and consider Campo’s arguments before arriving to the conclusion that the Sudan IV contamination originated from Campo Research.
In summary, the lack of prior notice and the opportunity for Campo Research to be heard before the issuance of the public allegation against Campo Research is inconsistent with principles of procedural fairness and unbiased decision-making.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that TFDA immediately remove Campo’s name from its website, as a source of Sudan IV contamination, as we believe that EHO is solely responsible for the intentional contamination of the six batches, which are 2025-01-13, 2025-02-18, 2025-10-10, 2024-03-19, 2024-10-04, and 2025-06-17.
Our client requests the release of all relevant test data, including but not limited to, raw analytical results, chain of custody records, and detailed information on sample collection and analysis. We further request an opportunity for open and transparent dialogue to clarify these matters and resolve any outstanding concerns.
Our client, Campo Research, maintains an unwavering commitment to the safety, quality, and regulatory compliance of all its products. Campo has invested substantial resources to quality assurance and welcomes robust regulatory oversight when conducted in a fair and transparent manner. However, the public dissemination of unsubstantiated allegations has resulted in measurable reputational and commercial harm to our client.
Unsubstantiated Claims
TFDA claims in its email of February 3, 2026, to our client that
CI 26105 (Sudan IV) has also been detected, or reported by brand owners through their own testing, in
finished cosmetic products manufactured using the aforementioned raw material across multiple
jurisdictions. These findings indicate systemic deficiencies within the raw material supply chain and
demonstrate that the impact of this incident is not confined to a single market.
We submit that the overseas media reports and claims are a roll-over from the China social media propagation, which is further aggravated by TFDA’s posting on its website concluding that Campo is the source of Sudan IV contamination, which was extensively disseminated by Taiwanese local media and other social media reports. We strongly argue that these results are reported without Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) (for Campo’s unique product – ingredient identity). In these circumstances, our client, Campo, is unable to confirm the source of material tested (for any product that said to be tested on media reports without an FTIR), including those “reported by brand owners through their own testing” as alleged in your email to our client.
We emphasize that our client has not received a single proper substantiated report supported by FTIR and LC-MS/MS test report from any such brand owners or social media influencers or even media outlets that reported on the Sudan IV contamination matter. Our client cannot act on unsubstantiated reports and/or biased social media reports.
Unsubstantiated allegations have been widely circulated through overseas media, yet it is important to clarify that such reports are predicated on unverified claims originating from Chinese social media sources. Critically, these reports lack substantiation via FTIR testing, which is necessary for Campo’s unique product ingredient identity. Without access to validated FTIR results or traceable samples, Campo Research is unable to confirm the provenance or authenticity of the tested materials.
We wish to underscore that all batches of Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai supplied to other jurisdictions and Taiwan in 2024 and 2025 have undergone rigorous quality control and analytical testing. Independent laboratory analyses using LC-MS/MS Method, as documented in the enclosed reports, confirm that 2024 and 2025 batch tested negative for Sudan IV. These findings provide clear evidence of compliance with international safety standards and demonstrate Campo’s commitment to regulatory integrity. LC-MS/MS Reports of batches supplied to other jurisdictions and Taiwan in 2024 and 2025 have tested negative for Sudan IV are enclosed. (Please download from link provided below).
Further Support of Deliberate Addition or Tampering
Furthermore, as reported by Jing Daily on October 29, 20253 “[t]esting found Sudan Red concentration as high as 1,170 ppm, far exceeding levels that could result from cross contamination, suggesting deliberate addition [emphasis added].” Dad’s Lab (social media enterprise in China) concluded possibility of deliberate tampering due to the unusually high concentrations of Sudan IV in certain samples purportedly linked to Campo Research. Our client’s position is that such tampering occurred through specific supplier(s) operating in China and Taiwan. This confirms our client’s position that tampering occurred with EHO and/or under 3 Jing Daily link https://jingdaily.com/posts/sudan-red-scandal-stains china-beauty-market-ahead-of-singles-day those further down EHO’s supply chain. Naming Campo as the source of the contamination is again unsubstantiated and baselessly done without confirming the provenance or authenticity of the tested materials in determining the actual source of the materials.
Conclusion
Campo Research conducted comprehensive testing using LC-MS/MS on 2024 and 2025 batches of its cosmetic raw material, Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai, for Sudan I, II, III, IV, and 13 prohibited colourants, and all results were negative. The attached test reports for 2024 and 2025 batches further confirm our client’s rigorous quality assurance. This indicates that any adulteration of Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai likely originated from suppliers, intermediaries, or final brand manufacturers. Given the absence of verified testing which includes FTIR and LC-MS/MS, together with evidence of possible tampering, it is apparent that the Sudan IV contamination allegations constitute a targeted misinformation campaign against Campo Research. These actions undermine industry trust and threaten the integrity of legitimate manufacturers.
We urge regulators and stakeholders to prioritize transparent communication and robust scientific verification in addressing such claims. Our client, Campo Research, remains steadfast in its dedication to product quality, regulatory compliance, and supply chain transparency. We call upon industry partners and regulatory bodies to engage in open dialogue, share verifiable data, and collectively uphold the standards of cosmetic industry sector.
Furthermore, under, Campo’s New Protocol – Enhanced Due Diligence, our client reiterates its firm position that there is no evidence of Sudan IV in Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai. Campo Research has strengthened its supplier vetting and raw material screening processes. All incoming raw materials are now subject to rigorous quality checks, including specific testing for unauthorized dyes such as Sudan IV.
All future batches, including those to be exported to Taiwan, will be tested for Sudan I, II, III, IV, and 13 prohibited colourants using LC-MS/MS Method, and all future raw material exports of Campo Research will accompany with a negative LC-MS/MS test report for Sudan I, II, III, IV, and 13 prohibited colourants.
To conclude, we urge TFDA to reconsider its position in light of the above facts to remove Campo’s name from its website, as the source of the Sudan IV contamination, and to communicate with our law firm towards a fair and evidence-based resolution of this matter.
We look forward to your prompt response and to engaging in constructive resolution.
You may write to us by email at mail@jvlawfirm.ca or by fax 1-416 546 7339.
Yours very truly,
JOSEPHIINE V LAW FIRM
Signed JOSEPHIINE V S CHESTER LL.B. J.D. LL.M.
Barrister & Solicitor – Notary Public
Encls.
- LC-MS/MS Negative (NO) SUDAN IV Test Reports for CAMPO SIDDHA VEPUVILLAI
KARUSHALAI YENAI Six Batches 2025-01-13, 2025-02-18, 2025-10-10, 2024-03-19,
2024-10-04, and 2025-06-17, Plus Entire Batches of 2024 to 2025 As Exported
to EHO.CO., TAIWAN
All of Same Identical Reference Samples (as below listed) as Exported to EHO CO.
TAIWAN were Tested for (NO) SUDAN IV @ SGS SINGAPORE - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(1).pdf BATCH 2024-01-30 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(2).pdf BATCH 2024-02-01 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(3).pdf BATCH 2024-03-11 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(4).pdf BATCH 2024-03-19 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(5).pdf BATCH 2024-05-06 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(6).pdf BATCH 2024-07-16 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(7).pdf BATCH 2024-09-30 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(8).pdf BATCH 2024-10-04 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(9).pdf BATCH 2024-12-04 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(10).pdf BATCH 2025-01-13 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(11).pdf BATCH 2025-02-04 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(12).pdf BATCH 2025-02-18 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(13).pdf BATCH 2025-04-21 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(14).pdf BATCH 2025-04-28 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(15).pdf BATCH 2025-05-20 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(16).pdf BATCH 2025-06-17 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(17).pdf BATCH 2025-09-16 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(18).pdf BATCH 2025-10-10 - Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620406(19).pdf BATCH 2025-10-27
2024 to 2025 batches of Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai
Yenai LC-MS/MS Negative (NO) SUDAN IV Test Reports
All of Same Identical Reference Samples (as below listed) as Exported to KOREA
were Tested for SUDAN IV @ SGS SINGAPORE
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(1).pdf BATCH 2024-02-15/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(2).pdf BATCH 2024-05-27/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(3).pdf BATCH 2024-06-10/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV SGS Test
Report with FTIR – 10620405(4).pdf BATCH 2024-07-11/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(5).pdf BATCH 2024-08-13/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(6).pdf BATCH 2024-08-28/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D ((NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(7).pdf BATCH 2024-09-30/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(8).pdf BATCH 2024-12-09/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D ((NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(9).pdf BATCH 2025-01-27/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(10).pdf BATCH 2025-02-24/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(11).pdf BATCH 2025-03-25/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(12).pdf BATCH 2025-04-08/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(13).pdf BATCH 2025-04-21/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(14).pdf BATCH 2025-06-05/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(15).pdf BATCH 2025-06-25/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(16).pdf BATCH 2025-07-24/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(17).pdf BATCH 2025-08-04/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(18).pdf BATCH 2025-08-25/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV SGS Test
Report with FTIR – 10620405(19).pdf BATCH 2025-09-22/(R)
Here’s the attachment as a link for your review: ASSAY SGS N.D (NO) SUDAN IV
SGS Test Report with FTIR – 10620405(20).pdf BATCH 2025-12-19/(R)
SGS Beta Radiocarbon (Radio Active C14) testing of Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai, showing of THE CAMPO SIDDHA VEPVILLAI KARUSHALAI YENAI are of 99% Natural Plant Bio-Based Origin
Please Review the Biobased Reports As Attached Link(s) Here-Below LR027222 Biobased Report -789214 – Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai SGS Beta Radiocarbon (Radio Active C14) Conducted on (11th December 2025)
IMPORTANT NOTE – ALL THE 6 nos. of Biobased Reports, are not included in The Letter to
Taiwan FDA of Feburary 11th 2026.
As the 6 nos. below of The Biobased Test Reports, arrived after February 19th 2026
LR031858 Biobased Report Rochi – 804711.pdf– Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai
SGS Beta Radiocarbon (Radio Active C14) Conducted on (19thFebruary 2026)
LR031863 Biobased Report Rochi – 804706.pdf– Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai
SGS Beta Radiocarbon (Radio Active C14) Conducted on (19thFebruary 2026)
LR031859 Biobased Report Rochi – 804710.pdf– Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai
SGS Beta Radiocarbon (C Radio Active 14) Conducted on (19thFebruary 2026)
LR031861 Biobased Report Rochi – 804708.pdf– Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai
SGS Beta Radiocarbon (Radio Active C14) Conducted on (19thFebruary 2026)
LR031860 Biobased Report Rochi – 804709.pdf– Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai
SGS Beta Radiocarbon (Radio Active C14) Conducted on (19thFebruary 2026)
LR031860 Biobased Report Rochi – 804709.pdf– Campo Siddha Vepuvillai Karushalai Yenai
SGS Beta Radiocarbon (Radio Active C14) Conducted on (19thFebruary 2026)
THE END OF LETTER TO TAIWAN FDA. OF FEBRARY 11TH 2026
Comments are closed.