Arbitrary Or Not, Prop 65 Standards Look Likely To Continue – Experts
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Firms marketing food and supplement products in California should expect Proposition 65 enforcement actions to continue because, even as industry calls for FDA to intervene, chances for relief will not come soon, experts say
You may also be interested in...
False Advertising Insurance Among Options For Changing Supplement Industry
Insurance brokers specializing in dietary supplement firms seek new coverage avenues as many manufacturers have cleaned up their act and lowered their product liability risk.
FDA Survey Shows Lead Labeling Not Needed For Supplements – Stakeholders
FDA's survey of lead contamination in hundreds of women's and children's vitamin supplements found what many industry stakeholders expected - lead levels in vitamins are not a cause for concern
Citizen petition on Prop 65
California's Proposition 65, when applied to dietary supplements and foods, "causes consumer confusion, "misbrands" safe and wholesome products, and frustrates FDA's ability to carry out its statutory mandates," dietary supplement marketer Swanson Health Products says in a citizen petition submitted to FDA Jan. 18. Therefore, the products should not be included in the act, the firm adds. Submitted on behalf of Swanson by law firm Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, the petition maintains that Prop 65's application to supplements and foods is "escalating," and that a private enforcer recently advised Swanson that it plans an "industry-wide enforcement action shortly," which it claims will result in the supplement industry following the requirements it is demanding of the firm. "Private enforcers, seeing the vast amount of money that is to be made, identify more food and dietary products that they can prosecute," Swanson adds. The National Uniformity for Food Act was introduced in Congress in 2006 to unify warning label requirements and pre-empt state-imposed requirements like Prop 65. Though the act was passed by the House that year it is awaiting further action by Congress (1"The Tan Sheet" March 13, 2006, In Brief)...