Implied Disease Claims Provision Is Setback For Industry - Hutt
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Strict implementation and enforcement of the implied disease claims provision in FDA's structure/function claims final rule could mean "lost ground" for dietary supplement firms, eradicating gains resulting from the agency's "retreat" from the proposed "disease" definition, according to attorney Peter Barton Hutt.
You may also be interested in...
FDA has determined a health claim relating vitamin E to a reduced risk of heart disease does not meet the "significant scientific agreement" standard. The agency's decision is articulated in a Jan. 11 letter to the Washington, D.C. firm Emord & Associates, which submitted the claim petition on behalf of Julian Whitaker, MD, Durk Pearson, Sandy Shaw and others.
FDA will permit dietary supplement makers to make structure/function claims for "common, mild symptoms associated with normal life stages or processes." Examples of allowable claims include hot flashes associated with menopause and mild mood changes, cramps and edema related to the menstrual cycle.
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