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 settlement

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

Online retailer is required to provide a reproductive toxicity warning to consumers before they purchase select designer steroid products marketed on its website, under the terms of a settlement the firm recently reached with the California-based non-profit Center for Environmental Health. is also required to show the warning before the sale of products containing any of 11 listed ingredients, according to the consent judgment. The 10 products requiring the warning include all the products named in an October 2005 Washington Post article on muscle-building products containing designer steroids and several other products (1"The Tan Sheet" Dec. 5, 2005, p. 9). A monetary penalty of $22,500, to be paid to CEH, is also included in the settlement. San Francisco, Calif.-based Lexington Law Group filed the Prop 65 lawsuit on behalf of CEH July 25 (2"The Tan Sheet" Aug. 7, 2006, p. 10). A hearing on the motion to approve the settlement is set for Oct. 10, according to Lexington Law Group Attorney Howard Hirsh...

You may also be interested in...

Are Designer Steroids Dietary Ingredients? FDA Warning Letter Skirts Issue

Assuming designer steroids are dietary ingredients, they also appear to be new dietary ingredients, FDA writes in a warning letter to the online retailer

Prop 65 Steroid Suit Planned Against Supplements Named In Post

The Center for Environmental Health plans to file a Prop 65 suit in January against 19 dietary supplement manufacturers and retailers for selling products containing anabolic steroids without warning labels, the group announces in a recent notice letter

Lilly’s 340B Restrictions: Jury Is Still Out On Appropriateness, But Optics Are Bad, HHS Says

Letter from department’s general counsel responds to request from the company for a pre-enforcement advisory opinion. Despite the letter, Lilly maintains its ‘limited distribution program is fully consistent with applicable laws and regulations.’





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