HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Pearson Injunction Against FDA Denied By Federal Judge

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

A preliminary injunction against FDA requested by the Pearson v. Shalala plaintiffs was denied May 24 by D.C. federal court judge Gladys Kessler. An appeal was filed May 26 by Emord & Associates (Washington, D.C.).

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)

Whitaker v. Shalala

FDA "has adduced no empirical evidence" supporting its assertion that a health claim for saw palmetto and benign prostatic hyperplasia would cause men with prostate cancer to delay treatment, undermine drug approval system protections or diminish research incentives, dietary supplement sellers say in a summary judgment motion filed June 13 in D.C. federal court. The Whitaker plaintiffs assert FDA, in a May 26 decision denying the claim, improperly attempted to reclassify saw palmetto as a drug and failed to review the petitioners' scientific evidence concerning the botanical's safety (1"The Tan Sheet" June 5, p. 14)

Related Content

Topics

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS133175

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel