Vitamin E Health Claim Falls Short Of Significant Scientific Agreement - FDA
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
FDA has determined a health claim relating vitamin E to a reduced risk of heart disease does not meet the "significant scientific agreement" standard. The agency's decision is articulated in a Jan. 11 letter to the Washington, D.C. firm Emord & Associates, which submitted the claim petition on behalf of Julian Whitaker, MD, Durk Pearson, Sandy Shaw and others.
You may also be interested in...
Supplement Health Claim Approval Costs Unaffordable, Economist Says
Dietary supplement companies would have to spend between $58 mil. and $348 mil. for NDA-type approval for each of six health claims they seek to make under FDA's significant scientific agreement standard, an Emory University economist maintains.
Pearson claims
FDA will make a final determination by Oct. 10 on the four proposed health claims, CFSAN says in a July 14 update on its 2000 program priorities. In light of the impending deadline, the Pearson plaintiffs say they are withdrawing their appeal of a D.C. federal judge's decision denying their motion to force the agency to allow immediate use of the four claims with appropriate disclaimers (1"The Tan Sheet" June 5, p. 14). CFSAN also announces a Nov. 24 deadline for determining whether health claims with qualifying disclaimers may be made for vitamin E/heart disease and vitamin B/vascular disease. The agency previously denied the two claims, finding they did not meet its significant scientific agreement standard (2"The Tan Sheet" Jan. 24, p. 10)
Antioxidant Chronic Disease Benefits Need Further Substantiation - FNB
The relationship between vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium and carotenoids and the prevention of chronic diseases has not conclusively been proven, the Institute of Medicine's Food & Nutrition Board asserts.