Tuna off the hook for Prop 65 warning
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive SummaryThe California Court of Appeals serves food companies a narrow victory in a Prop 65 suit brought by the California attorney general against tuna companies for not warning that tuna includes methylmercury. The court ruled March 11 the companies did not need to include a Prop 65 warning because federal law pre-empted the state regulation in the case, the amount of methylmercury did not meet the threshold to trigger a warning and the chemical occurs naturally in tuna. The decision adds the warning was not necessary because chemical exposure can be averaged over time
You may also be interested in...
A BLA filing for Zynteglo in beta-thalassemia is expected in the second half of 2020 instead of the first half, but the first commercial patient in the EU will be treated in the first half of this year.
Amid the ongoing spread of the coronavirus outbreak, China turns to novel and repurposed antiviral drugs but also courts traditional medicines to ease public fear over the largely unknown threat.
With Pataday Once Daily Relief (0.2% olopatadine) and Twice Daily (0.1%), Alcon adds allergy treatment to its lineup of OTC drops indicated for dry eye and redness. “Obviously, eye allergy will become a much bigger part of the portfolio for us,” says US vision care GM Sean Clark.