Focus Group Testing For Health Claim Consumer Perception Advised By CSPI
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
FDA should use focus groups to determine whether consumers understand or are misled by health claims on foods and dietary supplements, according to comments submitted to FDA June 4 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest
You may also be interested in...
Health claims debate
Firms value authorized health claims "much more" than qualified claims "and will always prefer an authorized claim to an unauthorized one and only thereafter an unauthorized one to none at all," supplement marketers say in July 1 comments to FDA. Filed on behalf of Life Extension Foundation and Julian Whitaker, MD, by Washington, D.C-based Emord & Associates, comments respond to CSPI assertions that qualified claims eliminate incentive for authorized claims. On the contrary, the "two-tiered claim approach has the effect of encouraging research because rather than an all-or-nothing [significant scientific agreement] option, the fact that a qualified claim exists affords enough security to justify risking capital," comments state. Firms also maintain CSPI, in criticizing health claims, ignores Pearson rulings forcing FDA to favor disclaimers over speech suppression. CSPI filed comments in June (1"The Tan Sheet" June 9, 2003, p. 16)...
Health claims debate
Firms value authorized health claims "much more" than qualified claims "and will always prefer an authorized claim to an unauthorized one and only thereafter an unauthorized one to none at all," supplement marketers say in July 1 comments to FDA. Filed on behalf of Life Extension Foundation and Julian Whitaker, MD, by Washington, D.C-based Emord & Associates, comments respond to CSPI assertions that qualified claims eliminate incentive for authorized claims. On the contrary, the "two-tiered claim approach has the effect of encouraging research because rather than an all-or-nothing [significant scientific agreement] option, the fact that a qualified claim exists affords enough security to justify risking capital," comments state. Firms also maintain CSPI, in criticizing health claims, ignores Pearson rulings forcing FDA to favor disclaimers over speech suppression. CSPI filed comments in June (1"The Tan Sheet" June 9, 2003, p. 16)...
Health claims debate
Firms value authorized health claims "much more" than qualified claims "and will always prefer an authorized claim to an unauthorized one and only thereafter an unauthorized one to none at all," supplement marketers say in July 1 comments to FDA. Filed on behalf of Life Extension Foundation and Julian Whitaker, MD, by Washington, D.C-based Emord & Associates, comments respond to CSPI assertions that qualified claims eliminate incentive for authorized claims. On the contrary, the "two-tiered claim approach has the effect of encouraging research because rather than an all-or-nothing [significant scientific agreement] option, the fact that a qualified claim exists affords enough security to justify risking capital," comments state. Firms also maintain CSPI, in criticizing health claims, ignores Pearson rulings forcing FDA to favor disclaimers over speech suppression. CSPI filed comments in June (1"The Tan Sheet" June 9, 2003, p. 16)...