Health Claims Based On Varying Levels Of Evidence Need Distinctions - FDA
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
An issue FDA aims to address at the April 4 public meeting on implementation of the Pearson v. Shalala court decision is how best to convey to consumers that certain dietary supplement health claims do not have as much scientific support as other claims.
You may also be interested in...
FDA Pearson Implementation Faces Further Congressional Criticism
FDA's progress in implementing the Pearson v. Shalala court decision is sharply criticized by Republican Reps. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (Idaho), Ron Paul (Texas) and Bob Stump (Ariz.) in a March 17 letter to the agency.
Pearson/health claims forum
FDA will hold a public meeting April 4 to solicit input on two dietary supplement labeling issues: implementation of the Pearson v. Shalala decision and whether claims about an effect on an existing disease should constitute a health claim or subject the product to drug regulation. In a March 3 letter to the dietary supplement community, FDA says a Federal Register notice detailing specific issues, logistics and registration information will be published shortly. Implementation of the Pearson vs. Shalala decision and development of a policy on disease-related statements are among CFSAN's "A-list" priorities for 2000 (1"The Tan Sheet" Feb. 14, p. 12)
FDA Denial Of Saw Palmetto Health Claim For BPH Prompts Lawsuit
FDA's denial of a health claim relating to saw palmetto and benign prostatic hyperplasia violates the First Amendment, the Nutrition Labeling & Education Act (NLEA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), Washington, D.C.-based Emord & Associates asserts in a suit filed Dec. 7.