NRT Firms’ Deference To “Informal” FDA Letters In Prop 65 Case Improper
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
NRT firms' reliance on "unpublished, ad hoc" FDA statements to support their contention that a Proposition 65 warning on OTC smoking cessation products conflicts with federal law is improper, according to a brief filed in California Supreme Court April 15
You may also be interested in...
CHPA Weighs In As Prop 65 Amicus Brief Filed In Calif. Supreme Court
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association's amicus curiae brief in defense of nicotine-replacement therapy manufacturers involved in California Prop 65 litigation reflects the group's concern the labeling conflict involved could extend to other OTC drugs
CHPA Weighs In As Prop 65 Amicus Brief Filed In Calif. Supreme Court
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association's amicus curiae brief in defense of nicotine-replacement therapy manufacturers involved in California Prop 65 litigation reflects the group's concern the labeling conflict involved could extend to other OTC drugs
CHPA Weighs In As Prop 65 Amicus Brief Filed In Calif. Supreme Court
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association's amicus curiae brief in defense of nicotine-replacement therapy manufacturers involved in California Prop 65 litigation reflects the group's concern the labeling conflict involved could extend to other OTC drugs