Pink Sheet is part 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 NRT litigation

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

Plaintiff Paul Dowhal "is mistaken" in asserting that FDA has only rejected one Prop 65 warning for NRT products, according to a reply brief filed in California Supreme Court June 16. "FDA has prohibited use of any articulation of the message that [Prop 65] requires...because it has determined that the substance of this message conflicts with the FD&C Act's prohibition on misbranding and thwarts the objective of avoiding overwarning," the brief maintains. Filed on behalf of 10 NRT manufacturers, marketers and retailers, the filing also takes issue with Dowhal's contention the firms rely on informal FDA correspondence to support their opposition to a Prop 65 warning (1"The Tan Sheet" April 28, 2003, p. 9). Dowhal "ignores the fact that this correspondence includes five NDA approval letters," the reply brief notes...
Advertisement

Related Content

Topics

Advertisement
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS095638

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