CSPI says Bayer nixes selenium claims
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Bayer discontinues claims in labeling and marketing that linked selenium in its One A Day Men's multivitamins to reduced risk of prostate cancer, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. However, CSPI still may pursue the lawsuit it threatened the company with in June because "Bayer adamantly insists that its claims are perfectly legal and refuses to make any commitment not to start making them again," said Stephen Gardner, CSPI's director of litigation, in an Aug. 11 e-mail. A spokeswoman declined to comment on Bayer's future plans for selenium/prostate cancer claims, though the firm previously said it was halting use of the claims in light of new science and FDA's acceptance of extremely limited health claims for selenium (1"The Tan Sheet" July 6, 2009)
You may also be interested in...
The Center for Science in the Public Interest makes good on its threat to sue Bayer over claims linking selenium in its One A Day Men's multivitamins to reduced risk of prostate cancer. The 1complaint, filed Sept. 30 in California state court in San Francisco, acknowledges Bayer removed prostate claims from its Web site but says it did not meet other CSPI demands, including recalling products with the claims and agreeing not to make the claims in the future (2"The Tan Sheet" Aug. 17, 2009). CSPI asks the court to find Bayer in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, and seeks relief for itself and its members. In a Sept. 2 letter attached to the complaint, Bayer threatens to sue CSPI for "false, misleading and defamatory" communications about the One A Day products. A Bayer spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the firm will sue
The Center for Science in the Public Interest says FDA should "flex its muscles" and make an example of Bayer's selenium claims for One A Day Men's multivitamins, just as it did with General Mills' heart health claims for Cheerios
ACIP defers vote on who should be inoculated first until it has data on a specific product, but vaccine acceptance among different groups could be weighed as factor in setting distribution priorities, committee members suggest.