Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded: FDA Warning Letter to MantroForce, 2026-06-17
Letter issued · posted to fda.gov .
Subject as published: Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded
TL;DR
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) issued a Warning Letter to MantroForce on 2026-06-17 regarding Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded. The letter references 21 CFR 201.128. The verbatim letter is published on fda.gov.
Argus analysis
MantroForce received a Warning Letter from FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), dated 2026-06-17, regarding Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded. The letter follows an FDA inspection and is classified by Argus HQ as critical severity, consistent with marketing an unapproved new drug under 21 USC 355 and/or misbranding under 21 USC 352.
The published letter cites 21 CFR 201.128. Warning Letters citing these sections generally concern marketing an unapproved new drug under 21 USC 355 and/or misbranding under 21 USC 352, commonly applied to unapproved OTC claims, compounded look-alikes, or imported products lacking an approved application. The full citation language and supporting observations are in the verbatim letter linked below — Argus HQ does not add citations beyond what FDA published.
FDA Warning Letters carry a 15-business-day response window for the recipient to detail corrective actions. Peer compliance teams in the same product category typically use a letter like this one as an external audit trigger, checking whether their own quality system has documented coverage for the cited sections and whether their CAPA log would withstand the same line of inspection questioning.
Severity context
Critical severity. Typically reserved for data integrity, sterile-product CGMP, or repeat violations — matters that historically precede injunctions, consent decrees, or import alerts.
Regulatory background
Unapproved-drug letters cite 21 USC 355 (NDA requirement) or 21 USC 331(d) (introduction into interstate commerce). FDA increasingly applies these provisions to homeopathic products, kratom, and certain compounded preparations.
What peer compliance teams typically do next
Most compliance officers at peer companies use a Warning Letter against a named entity as a checklist for their own CAPA program. Common steps: pull the verbatim FDA letter; map each cited 21 CFR section against the team’s SOP library; confirm CAPA coverage; brief the QMR (Quality Management Review) on whether the cited subject matter is in scope for the next internal audit. The 15-business-day response window applies to the cited entity, not to peers — but a documented internal review against the cited subjects is what regulators expect to see if a peer is later inspected on the same topic.
Excerpt from the FDA Warning Letter (public domain, 17 USC §105)
WARNING LETTER MantroForce MARCS-CMS 729021 — June 17, 2026 More Warning Letters Warning Letters About Warning and Close-Out Letters Delivery Method: VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL READ/DELIVERY RECEIPT REQUESTED Product: Drugs Recipient: MantroForce Room 701, Unit 127, 7/F Tower B New Mandarin Plaza Tsim Sha Tsui Hong Kong SAR China info@mantroforce.com Issuing Office: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) United States June 17, 2026 WARNING LETTER Reference Number: 729021 To MantroForce: This warning letter advises you of significant violations observed during a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of your website. Promptly address the violations described herein without delay, including ensuring that appropriate resources are allocated to fully address the violations and prevent their recurrence. This is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations that may exist in connection with your products or operations. It is your responsibility to ensure that your firm complies with all requirements of federal law, including FDA regulations. Failure to adequately address violations may result in regulatory or legal action without further notice including, without limitation, seizure and injunction. FDA Review Violations were identified and documented during a review of your website https://mantroforce.com/en-us in May 2026. Based on our review, “Passion Pro Endurance Delay Spray,” “Complex Men’s Nasal Inhaler,” “ErectBoost Vitality Spray for Men,” “Prostate Care Gel,” and “Prostate Patches” are unapproved new drugs under section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 355(a). As explained further below, introducing or delivering these products for introduction into interstate commerce violates sections 301(d) and 505(a) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 331(d) and 355(a). Violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act The following are violations identified during our review. As a reminder, this is not an allinclusive list of violations that may exist in connection with your products or operations. Unapproved New Drug Violations Based on a review of your website, “Passion Pro Endurance Delay Spray,” “Complex Men’s Nasal Inhaler,” “ErectBoost Vitality Spray for Men,” “Prostate Care Gel,” and “Prostate Patches” are drugs under section 201(g)(1) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1), because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and/or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body. Examples from your product labeling, including on your website, that provide evidence of the intended use (as defined in 21 CFR 201.128) of these products as drugs include, but may not be limited to, the following: Passion Pro Endurance Delay Spray On the webpage https://mantroforce.com/en-us/products/long-lasting-confidence-delay-spray: “Master Your Performance and Last 5x Longer Starting Tonight” “IS PREMATURE EJACULATION DISRUPTING YOUR INTIMACY?…
Excerpt only. The full verbatim Warning Letter is the source of truth — always read the original before regulatory decisions.
The verbatim FDA Warning Letter is the source of truth. Always read the original before acting on any analysis or summary on this page.
Read the full letter on fda.gov ↗Frequently asked questions
- When did FDA issue the warning letter to MantroForce?
- FDA issued the letter (MARCS-CMS 729021) on 2026-06-17 and posted it publicly on fda.gov on 2026-06-23.
- Is the FDA warning letter to MantroForce publicly available?
- Yes. The full verbatim letter is published at fda.gov. Argus HQ links directly to the source: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/mantroforce-729021-06172026.
- What does a "critical" severity rating mean for this letter?
- Critical severity. Typically reserved for data integrity, sterile-product CGMP, or repeat violations — matters that historically precede injunctions, consent decrees, or import alerts.
- What is the regulatory background for a Unapproved drug warning letter?
- Unapproved-drug letters cite 21 USC 355 (NDA requirement) or 21 USC 331(d) (introduction into interstate commerce). FDA increasingly applies these provisions to homeopathic products, kratom, and certain compounded preparations.
argus.hq
Don’t find out about the next one six weeks late.
Argus reads every FDA Warning Letter the day it publishes, summarizes it against your watchlist, and lands the ones touching your business in your inbox at 6am ET. $199/month. Cancel any time.
methodology
The analysis above is produced by Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 against the verbatim FDA Warning Letter excerpt and is brand-voice lint-checked before publish. The TL;DR is the same summary that ships in the customer email digest. Severity is auto-classified by Argus from the subject string and letter body using rules documented in lib/ingestion/fda-warning-letters.ts.
Argus HQ is informational only. Summaries and analyses are AI-generated and may contain errors, misclassifications, or omissions. Verify against the FDA source URL above. Argus HQ is not a law firm, accounting firm, or regulatory agency, and provides no legal, accounting, financial, medical, or regulatory advice.
Compiled by Argus HQ Research from FDA primary sources · Reviewed by Andy Gaber, Founder
Cite this record
Reusing this data in reporting or research? Here’s a ready-made citation.
Argus HQ Research (2026). Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded: FDA Warning Letter to MantroForce, 2026-06-17. Digital Empire LLC. Retrieved from https://argushq.ai/fda/warning-letter/fda-wl-mantroforce-2026-06-17-unapproved-drug
"Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded: FDA Warning Letter to MantroForce, 2026-06-17." Argus HQ Research, Digital Empire LLC, 2026, argushq.ai/fda/warning-letter/fda-wl-mantroforce-2026-06-17-unapproved-drug.
Argus HQ Research. "Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded: FDA Warning Letter to MantroForce, 2026-06-17." Digital Empire LLC. Accessed July 13, 2026. https://argushq.ai/fda/warning-letter/fda-wl-mantroforce-2026-06-17-unapproved-drug.
@misc{argushq_argushq_ai_fda_warning_letter_fda_wl_mantroforce_2026_06_17_unapproved_drug_2026,
title = {Unapproved New Drugs/Misbranded: FDA Warning Letter to MantroForce, 2026-06-17},
author = {{Argus HQ Research}},
year = {2026},
publisher = {Digital Empire LLC},
url = {https://argushq.ai/fda/warning-letter/fda-wl-mantroforce-2026-06-17-unapproved-drug},
note = {Accessed: July 13, 2026}
}