Pearson claims
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
FDA will make a final determination by Oct. 10 on the four proposed health claims, CFSAN says in a July 14 update on its 2000 program priorities. In light of the impending deadline, the Pearson plaintiffs say they are withdrawing their appeal of a D.C. federal judge's decision denying their motion to force the agency to allow immediate use of the four claims with appropriate disclaimers (1"The Tan Sheet" June 5, p. 14). CFSAN also announces a Nov. 24 deadline for determining whether health claims with qualifying disclaimers may be made for vitamin E/heart disease and vitamin B/vascular disease. The agency previously denied the two claims, finding they did not meet its significant scientific agreement standard (2"The Tan Sheet" Jan. 24, p. 10)
You may also be interested in...
Pearson Injunction Against FDA Denied By Federal Judge
A preliminary injunction against FDA requested by the Pearson v. Shalala plaintiffs was denied May 24 by D.C. federal court judge Gladys Kessler. An appeal was filed May 26 by Emord & Associates (Washington, D.C.).
Vitamin E Health Claim Falls Short Of Significant Scientific Agreement - FDA
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.
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