California supplement AER bill
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
SB 779, which would require quarterly supplement AE reporting and charge fees to manufacturers for implementation, was held in the Assembly Committee and will not be revisited until 2004 legislative session. Bill faced opposition from CHPA, AHPA, NNFA, several firms due to its lack of specifics regarding AE info required, allocation of fees. Sponsored by Jackie Speier (D), bill passed Senate June 2 (1"The Tan Sheet" June 30, 2003, In Brief)...
You may also be interested in...
Will California Supplement Field Flourish Under Schwarzenegger’s Watch?
California Republican Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger's pro-business stance and fitness industry background may create an environment friendly to the state's large dietary supplement industry
California AER bill
Legislation requiring quarterly adverse event reporting to state's Department of Health Services by distributors, manufacturers of supplements is slated for July 8 hearing in Assembly Health Committee. SB 779 excludes products containing only vitamins, minerals. Under bill, health department would be authorized to collect fees and establish Dietary Supplement Consumer Complaint Fund. CHPA, NNFA, Herbalife oppose bill, which passed Senate June 2...
MoCRA’s Adulteration Ambiguity And FDA’s New Cosmetic Recall Authority: Attorney Weighs In
The US FDA should use guidance or rulemaking to clarify MoCRA provisions related to adulteration, Amin Wasserman Gurnani attorney Angela Diesch suggested at the Independent Beauty Association’s Cosmetics Convergence Spring Symposium. Attendees also sought her take on whether the agency’s new recall authority is likely to spell an increase in cosmetic product recalls.