Consumer groups oppose “Commonsense”
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, Public Citizen and the Alliance for Justice oppose proposed Senate legislation dubbed "the Commonsense Consumption Act of 2005" (S 908) "because it gives an unjustified, super-sized protection to special interests," the groups state in a letter sent to several senators Sept. 15. The bill provides protection for food, beverage and dietary supplement manufacturers as well as trade groups against "lawsuits seeking to blame individual food and beverage providers for a person's weight gain" and related conditions. The consumer groups argue that the bill preempts state consumer protection legislation and say that "frivolous obesity" lawsuits against manufacturers are a "phantom problem." The breadth of the bill also concerns the groups because it covers "potentially dangerous" food additives and supplements that "would seem immune from liability if they caused serious injury or death entirely unrelated to a person's weight gain," the letter says. Conversely, the Natural Products Association supports the bill because of the provision for trade associations, the group states...
You may also be interested in...
The final opinion of ECHA’s Socio-Economic Analysis Committee, published on 1 March, is largely unchanged from its July 2020 draft opinion with regard to microplastic in cosmetic products. That means industry may have to convince EU member state authorities that the restriction proposal has a serious proportionality problem.
Representatives from cardiac monitoring device manufacturers and professional societies are working together to persuade Medicare carrier Novitas to reconsider its payment rates for extended cardiac monitoring. See what Michael Coyle, iRhythm’s CEO, said about it here.
As agency implements testing contract for its staff, sponsors are drawing up protocols to ensure inspector safety and forwarding them to FDA, but still can’t trigger an inspection.