Catch-22? Supplements May Be Trapped By FDA’s Risk/Benefit Standard
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Some legal experts contend that a glass ceiling built into FDA's risk/benefit analysis of dietary supplements could leave certain products more vulnerable to regulatory scrutiny in the wake of the agency's outright ban of ephedra
You may also be interested in...
Bitter Orange Safety Concerns Raised By Sen. Schumer, Rep. Waxman
Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) calls for an immediate ban on weight-loss products containing bitter orange (citrus aurantium), or its component synephrine, in a Feb. 1 1letter to FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan, MD/PhD
DSHEA “Unreasonable Risk” Standard Does Not Require Proof Of Harm – FDA
FDA's legal burden in establishing that a dietary supplement should be banned does not include proving the substance caused harm, the agency states in a 1final rule scheduled for publication in the Feb. 11 Federal Register.
Supplement GMP Warning Letters Make Modest Debut In 2010
Finalization of a settlement between the Federal Trade Commission and Rexall Sundown regarding unsupported cellulite treatment claims for the firm's Cellasene dietary supplement hinges upon approval of two related class action settlements pending in California and Florida, according to FTC