Pink Sheet is part of the Business Intelligence Division 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


Court rules for Emord in health claims case

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

A federal court rules FDA must adhere to the First Amendment standard established in Pearson v. Shalala and allow certain qualified anti-carcinogenic claims for selenium, as sought by attorney Jonathan Emord. Clifton, Va.-based Emord & Associates sued FDA in 2009 on behalf of the Alliance for Natural Health U.S., the Coalition to End FDA and FTC Censorship and supplement businesspersons Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, alleging FDA's approval of narrowly qualified health claims denied consumers accurate information (1"The Tan Sheet" Aug. 3, 2009, In Brief). In a May 27 2decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia calls FDA's position on QHCs "troubling" and says the agency "is obligated to at least consider the possibility of approving plaintiffs' proposed language with the addition of 'short, succinct, and accurate disclaimers.'

Related Content

Suit claims FDA "censorship" on QHCs





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