Food-Grade Silicone Oil ≠ Medical-Grade Silicone Oil! Clarifying the Compliance Boundary Between FDA 21 CFR and USP Class VI Is Urgently Needed-Iota

Products

News

Office Address:	Sunmoon Science Park, 985 Xingzhong Road, High-Tech Zone, Bengbu, China
Factory Address:	Mohekou Industrial Park, Huaishang District, Bengbu, Anhui, China
Contact:	Ariel Young
Phone:	0086-552-3827158
FAX:	0086-552-3822922
Mobile:	0086-15255290433
WebSite:	www.siliconeoil.cn www.siliconeoil.net
Email:	sales@siliconeoil.net
QQ:

News > Dynamic industry > Food-Grade Silicone Oil ≠ Medical-Grade Silicone Oil! Clarifying the Compliance Boundary Between FDA 21 CFR and USP Class VI Is Urgently Needed

Food-Grade Silicone Oil ≠ Medical-Grade Silicone Oil! Clarifying the Compliance Boundary Between FDA 21 CFR and USP Class VI Is Urgently Needed

In the food processing, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries, silicone oil is commonly used as a lubricant, antifoaming agent, or release medium. However, recent compliance incidents have exposed a widespread misconception: the assumption that “food-grade” silicone oil can be directly substituted in medical or pharmaceutical applications. In reality, FDA 21 CFR and USP Class VI represent distinct regulatory tiers with non-interchangeable requirements—misapplication may trigger regulatory warnings or even product recalls.

Under the U.S. regulatory framework, food-grade silicone oil must comply with 21 CFR §177.2600 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The core requirement involves testing under simulated food-contact conditions (e.g., immersion in hot oil for 7 days), ensuring that non-volatile residues remain below specified limits to prevent harmful migration. However, this standard does not include biocompatibility testing and is intended solely for non-human-contact applications such as lubrication of food machinery or release agents on conveyor belts.

In contrast, medical-grade silicone oil must undergo rigorous biological safety evaluations per USP <87> and <88>, achieving USP Class VI certification, which includes:

Acute systemic toxicity test
Intracutaneous reactivity (irritation) test
Implantation test (typically 7–14 days)

These tests ensure the material does not provoke inflammation, toxicity, or immune responses when in direct or indirect contact with human tissue, blood, or pharmaceutical formulations. For example, silicone oil used to lubricate syringes, defoam injectable drugs, or coat catheters must pass USP Class VI; if it only meets FDA food-grade standards, it will be deemed an “unapproved component” in a medical device or drug product.

“We once worked with a pharmaceutical equipment supplier whose entire vaccine batch was placed on hold because they used food-grade silicone oil to lubricate a filling pump,” revealed a technical consultant from a third-party compliance firm. “While the FDA doesn’t require biocompatibility testing for food-grade materials, it mandates such testing for any component in medical devices or drug-contact systems.”

Notably, some suppliers ambiguously advertise products as “FDA-compliant” without specifying the exact regulation (e.g., 21 CFR 177.2600) or providing USP Class VI test reports—creating hidden compliance risks.

Experts recommend:

Food processing equipment: Use silicone oil compliant with 21 CFR §177.2600.
Pharmaceutical equipment / medical devices: Must use silicone oil certified to USP Class VI, accompanied by full test reports and a Declaration of Conformity (DoC).

As both the U.S. FDA and China’s NMPA intensify requirements for supply chain transparency, companies must rigorously differentiate application scenarios to avoid costly consequences stemming from “grade mismatch.”