1Does FDA require shipping validation?
Not by that name. None of the 2,789 documents in FDA’s guidance database on 8 November 2026 has drug shipping or transport validation in its title, and 21 CFR Part 211 never uses the word “transport”; it mentions shipping conditions only for returned products, in 211.204.¹² The clearest US requirement is for cells and tissues, 21 CFR 1271.265(d): “For each type of HCT/P, you must establish appropriate shipping conditions to be maintained during transit.” It covers human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps), including those regulated as drugs or biologics.³⁴ For other drugs, FDA reaches transport through these rules:
| Rule | What it requires | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| 21 CFR 211.142(b) | Written warehousing procedures for storage “under appropriate conditions of temperature, humidity, and light” | Finished drugs¹ |
| 21 CFR 211.150 | Written distribution procedures: oldest stock first, each lot traceable for recall. No temperature requirement | Finished drugs¹ |
| 21 CFR 211.94(b) | Container closure systems protect against foreseeable external factors “in storage and use” | Finished drugs¹ |
| 21 CFR 211.166(a) | Stability results determine storage conditions | Finished drugs¹ |
| 21 CFR 205.50(d)(2) | Each outgoing shipment inspected so nothing held under improper conditions is delivered | Wholesale distributors⁵ |
| 21 CFR 600.15 | Fixed shipping temperatures, such as −18 °C or colder for Fresh Frozen Plasma | Listed biologics⁶ |
| ICH Q7 10.21 to 10.23 | Transport that does not harm quality; special conditions on the label; carriers know and follow them | APIs⁷ |
FDA asks for shipping data in application review: one complete response letter asked for validation in the actual lanes in summer and winter, and others rejected simulation alone and a deferral to an annual report (quoted below). For gene therapy INDs, FDA’s 2020 CMC guidance asks how the product “will be shipped to, received, and handled at the clinical site”.⁸ So a US answer has two parts: under CGMP, show storage conditions hold from dock to customer; in a filing, show it with shipping data.
The EU, PIC/S, WHO, USP and Health Canada say it directly:
| Source | What it asks |
|---|---|
| Annex 15, 6.1 to 6.4 | Routes “clearly defined”; seasons considered; risk assessment of unmonitored variables; continuous monitoring unless justified⁹ |
| EU GDP 9.2 to 9.4 | Route risk assessment; qualified equipment for temperature- |
| PIC/S PI 006-4, 6.1 | Each route “verified before use by execution of a test protocol”¹¹ |
| WHO supplements 13, 14 | Profile the route as the basis for qualification; qualify shippers by design, operational and performance qualification (DQ, OQ, PQ)¹²¹³ |
| USP 1079.5 | Lane temperature mapping and qualification, official from 1 April 2027; its briefing says it “does not cover qualification of controlled temperature systems such as packing and vehicles”¹⁴¹⁵ |
| Health Canada GUI-0069 | Qualify shippers against ambient extremes from lane profiling; recheck routes for seasonal extremes (5.2, 5.3)¹⁶ |
1.1Room-temperature lanes.
Room-temperature lanes need controls too, usually lighter. In the EU even a product with no storage statement should have its temperature “monitored during storage and transport”, and Health Canada says a qualified shipper may not need ongoing monitoring “provided it is confirmed periodically”.¹⁷¹⁶ For USP’s excursion allowances, see controlled room temperature.
2Lane qualification protocol template.
A lane is an origin, destination, mode, carriers and hubs, with the season and packaging that travel it. Each line is a protocol section, its record and its source; only product quality testing is a filing expectation rather than GMP or GDP.
| Section | What it holds | Record | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope and lanes | Origins, destinations, carriers, hubs, modes, longest transit, transit storage; the worst-case lane and why | Lane list and rationale | Annex 15 6.2; PI 006-4 6.1.4; WHO S13 2.4⁹¹¹¹² |
| Risk assessment | Delays, customs, breakdown, staff shortages, failed loggers, light, humidity, vibration; updated as new risks appear | Route risk assessment | Annex 15 6.3; PI 006-4 6.1.2, 6.1.6⁹¹¹ |
| Product requirements | Storage range, allowed excursions and the stability data behind them; freeze sensitivity | Stability summary | Annex 15 6.1; GUI-0069 5.2⁹¹⁶ |
| Route profile | Exterior logger every 10 to 30 minutes, both seasons; 30 trips a year is statistically valid; ISTA advises at least 25 samples per season, mode and origin | Profiling report and raw data | WHO S14 2, 2.2, 2.3¹³ |
| Test profiles | Hot and cold chamber profiles with the same degree-hours as the worst recorded trip | Profile calculation | WHO S14 2.5, 2.6.1¹³ |
| Packaging system | Shipper model, coolant conditioning, pack-out, minimum and maximum payload of the lowest thermal mass product | Pack-out instruction | WHO S13 2.1¹² |
| OQ | Chamber tests against each profile and load, in triplicate, all passing; or the supplier’s OQ if nothing is changed | OQ report | WHO S13 2.1.2¹² |
| PQ | Real shipments: at least three per payload, in the warmest and coolest part of the year | PQ worksheets and report | WHO S13 2.4¹² |
| Monitoring | Interior logger at the most susceptible spot, often a top corner, plus an exterior one; 30 minutes or less; ±0.5 °C; by air, one per pallet if pallets may separate | Logger calibration certificates | WHO S13 2.4; PI 006-4 6.1.8¹²¹¹ |
| Product quality | Filing only: stability- | Test results | FDA letter¹⁸ |
| Acceptance criteria | Product range for the minimum duration, from closure to opening; shipper undamaged on arrival | Protocol | WHO S13 2.1, 2.3.6, 2.4¹² |
| Requalification | PQ repeated on a risk-based cycle and considered on “changes to components, shipping routes or shipping duration”; reusable shippers typically yearly | Periodic review | WHO S13 2.1.4, 2.4; GUI-0069 5.3¹²¹⁶ |
2.1Who does what.
The protocol names the people responsible for writing, executing, testing, sampling, reporting and approving it.¹²
| Role | Does | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Study manager | Runs the study, collects logger data, analyses and reports the results | WHO S14 2.2 h, 2.4¹³ |
| Site responsible person | At each origin and receiving site: briefed in advance, retrieves and returns loggers | WHO S14 2.3 d, 2.4 a¹³ |
| QA and stakeholders | Approve the protocol before the first study shipment and the report after, as the quality system defines | Annex 15 2.2; WHO S13 2.3.2, S14 2.2⁹¹²¹³ |
| Shipper supplier | May supply the OQ report; your site confirms it meets the URS and procedures before approving it | WHO S13 2.1.2; Annex 15 2.6¹²⁹ |
2.2Order and time.
- Assess and group the lanes. Risk-assess routes before any qualification stage, grouping those with shared risks.¹²¹⁹
- Profile the route. Ideally all year; at least the hot and cold seasons. Expect to lose about 10% of loggers, so send spares.¹³
- Qualify the shipper in the chamber. DQ, including vibration and drop tests, then OQ; each stage completes before the next.¹²
- Run PQ shipments in the warmest and the coolest part of the year. WHO puts PQ at several weeks to several months.¹²
- Report, approve, then monitor. Periodic monitoring continues, but it “is not a substitute for a formal route profiling qualification process”.¹³
3Example: a summer test profile and PQ for one lane.
Example, all invented: the product, sites, shipper and data are illustrative.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Protocol | LQ-25-007, approved 28 May 2025 |
| Lane | L-07: Site North packaging hall to Depot B, road with one hub transfer, longest transit 48 hours |
| Product | Product V 10 mg/mL vials, 2 to 8 °C, do not freeze |
| Shipper | Passive shipper PS-32; payload configuration changed from the supplier’s, so OQ repeated |
| Acceptance | Every interior logger 2.0 to 8.0 °C for 60 hours from closure to opening (48 hours plus 12 contingency); shipper undamaged on arrival |
Five summer profiling trips, June to August 2025, logged ambient air outside the shipper every 15 minutes. Degree-hours (E) total the interval in hours times the temperature above a threshold; WHO’s worked example totals degree-hours above 0.0 °C, and every reading here was above it, so E is simply 48 hours times the trip’s mean.¹³
| Trip | Shipped | Range, °C | Mean, °C | Degree-hours |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 3 June 2025 | 14.2 to 31.0 | 21.4 | 1,027.2 |
| S2 | 17 June 2025 | 15.8 to 33.4 | 23.9 | 1,147.2 |
| S3 | 1 July 2025 | 12.9 to 29.6 | 19.8 | 950.4 |
| S4 | 15 July 2025 | 16.8 to 35.1 | 26.2 | 1,257.6 |
| S5 | 29 August 2025 | 15.1 to 34.0 | 24.6 | 1,180.8 |
S4 is the worst case. The chamber profile follows its timeline in twelve 4-hour steps: 22.0, 24.0, 30.0, 34.0, 28.0, 24.0, 22.0, 26.0, 32.0, 30.0, 22.0 and 20.4 °C. They sum to 314.4, and 314.4 × 4 hours = 1,257.6 degree-hours, the same heat as S4.¹³ Five trips illustrate the arithmetic; a real study needs more.
OQ in September 2025 ran this profile, extended to 60 hours by repeating its first three steps, in triplicate at minimum and maximum load: all six held 3.1 to 7.2 °C for 60 hours. Winter works the same way below a threshold, as in WHO’s cold-climate case. The worst winter trip, W2 on 13 January 2026, stayed below 0.0 °C throughout at a mean of −3.5 °C, so E is 48 × 3.5 = 168.0 degree-hours below 0.0 °C. A cold OQ profile with the same exposure, run in March 2026, held all six runs at 2.6 to 6.9 °C.¹³
Summer PQ, June to July 2026, sent three shipments of real product at each load on L-07. Five stayed within range, the highest reading 7.4 °C. Run P-05, at maximum load, reached 8.6 °C at hour 41 at the top corner: a fail, so the PQ report will include its deviation report.¹²
- Deviation DEV-26-031 records the failure. Root cause: coolant packs conditioned for 18 hours instead of the specified 24. Corrective action: a conditioning-time check at pack-out.
- The vials in P-05 are handled as a temperature excursion against their stability data.
- All three maximum-load runs are repeated in August 2026 and pass, which closes the deviation; PQ must meet its criteria in every run.¹²
- Winter PQ repeats the six runs in January 2027, the coolest part of the year. The lane is qualified when both seasons pass.¹²
4Qualified shipper or full lane study?
| Situation | What to do | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Prequalified shipper | If the supplier’s OQ report meets your URS, skip DQ and OQ; run PQ on your lanes | ¹² |
| Shipment by shipment | For clinical or rare lanes, log and judge every shipment instead; EMA accepts transport to trial sites “validated or monitored” | ¹⁷¹² |
| No monitoring | WHO requires PQ unless every shipment on every route is monitored; MHRA wants “a very robust validation” | ¹²¹⁹ |
| New lane, same shipper | Profile the lane and compare its degree-hours with what the shipper passed | ¹³¹⁶ |
| Freezable, near 0 °C | If ambient swings around 0 °C, WHO’s degree-hour rule of thumb does not apply; use test shipments logged inside and out | ¹³ |
| ISTA 7E as the profile | ISTA calls its 7E profiles “general simulations not intended to represent the worst case”; check them against lane data | ²⁰ |
| Simulation-only filing | Expect FDA to ask for real shipping data or a concurrent protocol; show any simulation is representative | ²¹¹⁸ |
5How regulators enforce it.
5.1What inspectors ask to see.
- The route risk assessment, covering delays, failed monitors and other variables not continuously controlled, and updated as new ones appear.⁹¹¹
- The verified route: the test protocol run before the route was used, and the report recording issues and delays.¹¹
- OQ and PQ reports: the OQ report compares its triplicate test results with the protocol’s acceptance criteria; the PQ report holds the protocol and signature log, worksheets, all data, calibration certificates and any deviation reports.¹²
- Logger control: where each logger sat, its traceability to the data and the download and integrity checks, verified before the report was approved, with calibration at least yearly.¹¹¹⁰
- Excursion handling: the procedure for investigating excursions in transit, and each one evaluated for its impact on the product. In September 2026 FDA asked kdc/one Chatsworth, Inc., under 21 CFR 211.142(b), for “Updated written procedures ensuring storage conditions are included on COAs and shipping labels.”¹⁰²²²³
5.2What FDA has written.
FDA’s complete response letter of 20 April 2018 to Pfizer Inc. on BLA 761081, for Trazimera, found that the passive pallet shipper’s ability “to maintain the storage temperature of 2-8°C in the actual shipping lanes has not been demonstrated”, and asked:
Provide the shipping validation summary report of the passive pallet shipper in the actual shipping lanes during winter and summer conditions in the BLA resubmission.
It accepted simulation only if “sufficiently representative of the commercial shipping conditions”.²¹ On 24 April 2023, in a comment on Novo Nordisk’s BLA 761315 that was not an approvability issue, FDA explained why simulation is generally not enough:
We do not agree with this assessment because while transport simulation studies provide supporting information, they do not replicate hazards that occur concurrently within a commercial supply chain and therefore, are generally not enough to address the potential risk of commercial shipping on product quality.
It asked for product quality before and after shipment, with temperatures logged inside and outside the shipper, and allowed “a shipping qualification protocol” for concurrent qualification instead.¹⁸ In October 2024 it told CSL Behring that leaving shipping validation data for a future annual report without an approved protocol was “inappropriate because product quality cannot be ensured during the actual commercial drug product shipment”.²⁴
Warning letters rarely reach transport: a full-text search of FDA’s letters on 8 November 2026 finds “shipping validation” in one, to the device maker JAS Diagnostics/Drew Scientific, Inc. on 16 August 2022, citing design controls, 21 CFR 820.30(a):²⁵²⁶
Your firm has not conducted shipping validation for the EX-TROL controls and EX-CAL calibrators that require (b)(4) °C storage. Your firm documented at least five complaints for “hot” or “damaged” controls received between March 2021 – September 2021.
For cell and tissue products, FDA’s letter of 11 May 2021 to Utah Cord Bank LLC listed among missing procedures “Receipt, predistribution shipment, and distribution, including release criteria and shipping conditions [21 CFR 1271.265]”.²⁷
6What changed in 2026.
- USP 1079.5, official 1 April 2027. USP’s new lane mapping and qualification chapter, proposed in Pharmacopeial Forum 51(5), was published on 25 September 2026.¹⁴¹⁵ After comments, USP revised it to define the worst case, base acceptance criteria on label claim, stability and stress data and chapter 659, and say how many monitoring devices to use and where.²⁸
- PIC/S PI 006-4, in force 1 October 2026. It updates and renames PI 006-3 of 2007.¹¹
7How it runs in Seal.
In Seal, a qualified distribution lane is a record: origin, destination, carriers, hubs, customs points, seasonal profile, maximum duration, packaging system, monitoring plan and contingency routes, with its qualification evidence. The same city pair can have different lanes for summer and winter, and each shipment instantiates the lane actually used. Before pack-out, Seal checks that the physical shipper is eligible for the product, payload, lane, season, expected duration and destination, and checks the logger’s range, sampling interval, battery, clock and placement (cold chain and temperature excursions).
Trend views compare lanes, seasons, carriers, shippers and excursion mechanisms. When a logger alarms, Neil confirms the logger-to-container mapping and sets it beside the product-specific stability evidence for QA, because a threshold crossing alone is not a disposition decision (assess a cold chain excursion).
References
- 121 CFR Part 211, sections 211.94, 211.142, 211.150, 211.166 and 211.204, eCFR. https:/
/ www. ecfr. gov/ current/ title- 21/ chapter- I/ subchapter- C/ part- 211 (read 8 November 2026) - 2Search for FDA Guidance Documents, FDA. https:/
/ www. fda. gov/ regulatory- information/ search- fda- guidance- documents (read 8 November 2026) - 321 CFR 1271.265(d), Receipt, predistribution shipment, and distribution of an HCT/P, eCFR. https:/
/ www. ecfr. gov/ current/ title- 21/ section- 1271. 265 (read 8 November 2026) - 421 CFR 1271.1(b)(2), What are the purpose and scope of this part?, eCFR. https:/
/ www. ecfr. gov/ current/ title- 21/ section- 1271. 1 (read 8 November 2026) - 521 CFR 205.50(d)(2), Examination of materials, eCFR. https:/
/ www. ecfr. gov/ current/ title- 21/ section- 205. 50 (read 8 November 2026) - 621 CFR 600.15, Temperatures during shipment, eCFR. https:/
/ www. ecfr. gov/ current/ title- 21/ section- 600. 15 (read 8 November 2026) - 7ICH Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, sections 10.21 to 10.23, ICH, 10 November 2000. https:/
/ database. ich. org/ sites/ default/ files/ Q7%20Guideline. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 8Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), guidance for industry, sections IV.D and V.B, FDA, January 2020. https:/
/ www. fda. gov/ media/ 113760/ download (read 8 November 2026) - 9EudraLex Volume 4, Annex 15, Qualification and Validation, sections 2.2, 2.6 and 6, European Commission, in operation from 1 October 2015. https:/
/ health. ec. europa. eu/ system/ files/ 2016- 11/ 2015- 10_ annex15_ 0. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 10Guidelines of 5 November 2013 on Good Distribution Practice of medicinal products for human use (2013/C 343/01), sections 9.1 to 9.4, European Commission. https:/
/ eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- content/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/ ?uri=CELEX:52013XC1123(01) (read 8 November 2026) - 11PI 006-4, Recommendations on Qualification and Validation, sections 1, 2 and 6.1, PIC/S, in force 1 October 2026. https:/
/ picscheme. org/ docview/ 11277 (read 8 November 2026) - 12Qualification of shipping containers, Technical Supplement 13 to WHO Technical Report Series No. 961, Annex 9, published in TRS No. 992, Annex 5, sections 1.1 and 2.1 to 2.5, WHO, May 2015. https:/
/ cdn. who. int/ media/ docs/ default- source/ medicines/ norms- and- standards/ guidelines/ distribution/ trs961- annex9- supp13. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 13Transport route profiling qualification, Technical Supplement 14 to WHO Technical Report Series No. 961, Annex 9, published in TRS No. 992, Annex 5, sections 1 to 2.6 and Annex 1, WHO, May 2015. https:/
/ cdn. who. int/ media/ docs/ default- source/ medicines/ norms- and- standards/ guidelines/ distribution/ trs961- annex9- supp14. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 142024–2026 Cumulative List of USP–NF Revisions, entries for chapters 1079.2 and 1079.5, United States Pharmacopeia, updated 25 September 2026. https:/
/ www. uspnf. com/ sites/ default/ files/ usp_ pdf/ EN/ USPNF/ usp- nf- commentary/ cumulative_ ballot_ results. xlsx (read 8 November 2026) - 15Transportation Lane Temperature Mapping and Qualification, general chapter 1079.5, proposal briefing, Case ID SUB-2207, USP–NF Pharmacopeial Forum, 2025. https:/
/ doi. usp. org/ USPNF/ USPNF_ M18595_ 10101_ 01. html (read 8 November 2026) - 16Guidelines for environmental control of drugs during storage and transportation (GUI-0069), sections 5.2 and 5.3, Health Canada, August 2020. https:/
/ www. canada. ca/ en/ health- canada/ services/ drugs- health- products/ compliance- enforcement/ good- manufacturing- practices/ guidance- documents/ guidelines- temperature- control- drug- products- storage- transportation- 0069. html (read 8 November 2026) - 17Guidance on good manufacturing practice and good distribution practice: questions and answers, GDP question 1 and investigational medicinal products question 6, European Medicines Agency. https:/
/ www. ema. europa. eu/ en/ human- regulatory- overview/ research- development/ compliance- research- development/ good- manufacturing- practice/ guidance- good- manufacturing- practice- good- distribution- practice- questions- answers (read 8 November 2026) - 18Complete response letter to Novo Nordisk, BLA 761315, FDA, 24 April 2023, additional comment 14. https:/
/ download. open. fda. gov/ crl/ 761315_ 2025_ Orig1s000OtherActionLtrs. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 19A practical example of applying quality risk management in GDP: transportation risks, MHRA Inspectorate blog, 15 July 2020. https:/
/ mhrainspectorate. blog. gov. uk/ 2020/ 07/ 15/ a- practical- example- of- applying- quality- risk- management- in- gdp- transportation- risks/ (read 8 November 2026) - 20ISTA 7E, Testing Standard for Thermal Transport Packaging Used in Parcel Delivery System Shipment, overview, International Safe Transit Association, 2010. https:/
/ ista. org/ docs/ 7Eoverview. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 21Complete response letter to Pfizer Inc., BLA 761081, FDA, 20 April 2018, item 3. https:/
/ download. open. fda. gov/ crl/ 761081_ 2019_ Orig1s000OtherActionLtrs. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 22Mean Kinetic Temperature in the Evaluation of Temperature Excursions During Storage and Transportation of Drug Products, general chapter 1079.2, official 1 August 2025, sections 3 and 5 and Table 1, United States Pharmacopeia, posted 2 December 2024. https:/
/ www. uspnf. com/ sites/ default/ files/ usp_ pdf/ EN/ USPNF/ usp- nf- notices/ PF492_ M13855. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 23kdc/one Chatsworth, Inc., warning letter, MARCS-CMS 733205, FDA, 8 September 2026. https:/
/ www. fda. gov/ inspections- compliance- enforcement- and- criminal- investigations/ warning- letters/ kdcone- chatsworth- inc- 733205- 09082026 (read 8 November 2026) - 24Complete response letter to CSL Behring LLC, BLA 761367, FDA, 7 October 2024, additional comment 3. https:/
/ download. open. fda. gov/ crl/ 761367Orig1s000OtherActionLtrs. pdf (read 8 November 2026) - 25Warning Letters, full-text search for “shipping validation”, FDA. https:/
/ www. fda. gov/ inspections- compliance- enforcement- and- criminal- investigations/ compliance- actions- and- activities/ warning- letters (read 8 November 2026) - 26JAS Diagnostics/Drew Scientific, Inc., warning letter, CMS 634208, FDA, 16 August 2022. https:/
/ www. fda. gov/ inspections- compliance- enforcement- and- criminal- investigations/ warning- letters/ jas- diagnosticsdrew- scientific- inc- 634208- 08162022 (read 8 November 2026) - 27Utah Cord Bank LLC, warning letter, MARCS-CMS 614021, FDA, 11 May 2021. https:/
/ www. fda. gov/ inspections- compliance- enforcement- and- criminal- investigations/ warning- letters/ utah- cord- bank- llc- 614021- 05112021 (read 8 November 2026) - 28Commentary for USP–NF 2027, Issue 2, general chapter 1079.5, comment summaries 2 to 4 and 8, United States Pharmacopeia, 25 September 2026. https:/
/ www. uspnf. com/ sites/ default/ files/ usp_ pdf/ EN/ USPNF/ usp- nf- commentary/ usp- nf- 2027- issue- 2- commentary- 20260925. pdf (read 8 November 2026)
AQuestions and answers
How many shipments does a lane performance qualification need?
WHO’s guidance asks for at least three per shipping container at both minimum and maximum payload, in the warmest and coolest parts of the year, so one container with two loads and two seasons needs at least 12. Every one must pass. The route profile before that ideally covers a full year, and WHO treats 30 trips on a route over a year as statistically valid.
Does a prequalified passive shipper remove the need for lane data?
No. A supplier’s operational qualification can stand in for your own only if nothing is changed and it meets your requirements. The lane still has to be profiled to show its temperatures sit inside what the shipper was qualified for, and performance qualification on real shipments is still expected unless every shipment is monitored.
What is the difference between shipper qualification and lane qualification?
Shipper qualification shows that a packaging system holds its temperature range against defined ambient profiles, through design and operational qualification in a chamber. Lane qualification shows that a particular route’s real conditions stay inside what the shipper was qualified for, using route profile data and performance qualification shipments on that route. A qualified shipper on an unprofiled lane is only half the evidence.
How often should a shipping lane be requalified?
Whenever components, the route or the shipping duration change, and otherwise on a risk-based cycle. Reusable shippers are typically requalified every year. Routine monitoring between qualifications shows when a lane is drifting, but it does not replace a formal route profile.
Who is responsible for shipping qualification, the manufacturer or the distributor?
Each party for the transport it arranges. Manufacturers verify transport from their site onward, and in the EU the supplying wholesale distributor is responsible for keeping temperature within limits to the customer. UK inspectors do not accept handing that responsibility to the customer by letting them collect the goods. Contracts with carriers should set out the conditions and who monitors them.