Health claims
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
D.C. federal appeals court's mandate for the implementation of the Pearson v. Shalala health claims decision issued to FDA April 20. The court ruled Jan. 15 that FDA's approach to regulating health claims for dietary supplements is unconstitutional and ordered the agency to clarify its significant scientific agreement standard and reconsider four claims ("The Tan Sheet" Jan. 25, p. 3). An agency petition for rehearing the case was denied April 2. FDA has until July 1 to request a Supreme Court review, after which the appeals court decision is final. Five House Republicans request FDA "spare the taxpayers the cost of further legal proceedings in the matter" in an April 19 letter to the agency. The letter is signed by Reps. Ron Paul (Tex.), Dan Burton (Ind.), Helen Chenoweth (Idaho), John Hostetler (Ind.), and Bob Stump (Ariz.). The group made a similar request prior to FDA's request for a rehearing
You may also be interested in...
Supplement GMP Warning Letters Make Modest Debut In 2010
Finalization of a settlement between the Federal Trade Commission and Rexall Sundown regarding unsupported cellulite treatment claims for the firm's Cellasene dietary supplement hinges upon approval of two related class action settlements pending in California and Florida, according to FTC
In Brief
Combe sells most of its OTC brands
People In Brief
Perrigo promotes in pricing, planning