Court rules for Emord in health claims case
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive SummaryA 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.'
You may also be interested in...
Submission surge in late 2019 means a spike in late summer 2020 user fee goals, including 16 novel agents in August alone.
Keeping Track: Approvals For Tazverik And Tepezza, Priority Reviews For Belantamab Mafodotin And Lynparza
The latest drug development news and highlights from our US FDA Performance Tracker.