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


Prop 65 meeting

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

California's Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment will hold a public workshop April 18 in Sacramento, Calif. to gather input from stakeholders on Proposition 65 as it relates to beneficial nutrients, which include dietary supplements. OEHAA is considering changing the regulation to allow certain chemicals, which Prop 65 currently lists as toxic, in supplements without a warning label if the firm can prove the chemical is beneficial to human health and the total chemical amount does not exceed the level established in the Dietary Reference Intake Tables of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. Swanson Health Products petitioned OEHAA on March 31 urging the office to modify Prop 65 regulations as they apply to food and supplements. In January, Swanson submitted a citizen petition to FDA stating Prop 65 "causes consumer confusion" and is misleading when applied to dietary supplements (1"The Tan Sheet" Jan. 28, 2008, In Brief)...

You may also be interested in...

Proposed Prop 65 Regulation Changes Based On Faulty Science, Groups Say

The American Herbal Products Association and the Council for Responsible Nutrition say proposed changes regarding California's Proposition 65 regulation rely on faulty science and would be unfair to supplement firms

Citizen petition on Prop 65

California's Proposition 65, when applied to dietary supplements and foods, "causes consumer confusion, "misbrands" safe and wholesome products, and frustrates FDA's ability to carry out its statutory mandates," dietary supplement marketer Swanson Health Products says in a citizen petition submitted to FDA Jan. 18. Therefore, the products should not be included in the act, the firm adds. Submitted on behalf of Swanson by law firm Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, the petition maintains that Prop 65's application to supplements and foods is "escalating," and that a private enforcer recently advised Swanson that it plans an "industry-wide enforcement action shortly," which it claims will result in the supplement industry following the requirements it is demanding of the firm. "Private enforcers, seeing the vast amount of money that is to be made, identify more food and dietary products that they can prosecute," Swanson adds. The National Uniformity for Food Act was introduced in Congress in 2006 to unify warning label requirements and pre-empt state-imposed requirements like Prop 65. Though the act was passed by the House that year it is awaiting further action by Congress (1"The Tan Sheet" March 13, 2006, In Brief)...

Arena Cannabinoid Pain Compound Misses In Phase IIb IBS Trial

Arena's Phase IIb CAPTIVATE trial assessing investigational olorinab in IBS missed its primary endpoint.





Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

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