Pink Sheet is part of the Business Intelligence Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

Prop 65 andro litigation

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

California AG "has presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact" on whether androstenedione fits within definition of "anabolic steroid," Oakland state court Judge Ronald Sabraw rules Nov. 5, denying supplement marketers' motion for summary judgment in Prop 65 case. Court says SB 1884, which was signed into law in September and requires special content and warning statements on supplements containing steroid hormone precursors, "does not compel the conclusion that andro cannot be an anabolic steroid" (1"The Tan Sheet" Oct. 7, 2002, p. 7). Trial in the case is scheduled for March...
Advertisement

Related Content

Calif. Ephedra Laws To Be Implemented With Help From NNFA
Calif. Ephedra Laws To Be Implemented With Help From NNFA

Topics

Advertisement
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS094775

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel