FDA Issues Draft Guidelines for Notification of New Dietary Ingredients

Just last week, the Food & Drug Administration issued draft guidelines for when manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements need to notify the FDA of so called “new dietary ingredients” and to provide the agency with evidence of the safety of the ingredient.  The requirement to provide the FDA with notification of new dietary ingredients and evidence of their safety has been around since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (“DSHEA”) was enacted in 1994.  However, it appears that there has been a substantial lack of compliance with this legal requirement.  According to various media reports, the FDA has received around 700 such notifications since the law went into effect in 1994.  Additionally, a law enacted just this past January (the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act) required FDA to issue the guidelines. 

Under DSHEA, a manufacturer or distributor of a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient must provide FDA with pre-market notification of the new dietary ingredient together with “information, including any citation to published articles, which is the basis on which the manufacturer or distributor has concluded that a dietary supplement containing such dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe.”  Where such notification is required, it must be given at least 75 days before the product is introduced into interstate commerce.  If this is not done, the dietary supplement will be deemed to be adulterated.

So now, you are probably asking what is a “new dietary ingredient”?  A new dietary ingredient is a dietary ingredient (a vitamin; a mineral; an herb or other botanical; an amino acid; a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing total dietary intake; or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any of the foregoing dietary ingredients) that was not marketed in the United States in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994.  Note that the pre-market notification described above is not required if the new dietary ingredient has been “present in the food supply as an article used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered.”  In other words, the pre-market notification will not be necessary if the new dietary ingredient (a dietary ingredient that was not present in a dietary supplement in the U.S. prior to October 15, 1994) is derived from something that was in the food supply of the U.S. prior to that date and has not been chemically altered. 

Because this is all somewhat confusing, the FDA has prepared the draft guidance, which you can view here. The draft guidance answers questions in a FAQ format to assist manufacturers and distributors in determining whether they need to file the pre-market notification and evidence of safety.  It also contains templates for the preparation of a new dietary ingredient pre-market notification.  In addition, if you are so inclined, you can even comment on the draft guidance, although in order for your comments to be considered by the FDA, they must be filed within 90 days of the date that the notification was published in the Federal Register.  The notification was published on July 5, 2011—see here.

FDA hopes that with the publication of these guidelines that compliance with the pre-market notification requirements will improve.  Only time will tell.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

New FDA Labeling Rules Allow Sunscreens to Claims of Reduced Risk of Skin Cancer and Early Skin Aging

Sunscreen products now may be labeled with new information stating that they reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging, as well as help prevent sunburn, , when used with other sun protection measures, under a new FDA regulation effective June 14, 2011.

Products that pass the FDA’s test for protection against both UVA and UVB rays now may be labeled as “Broad Spectrum.”  Under the new labeling, sunscreens labeled as both Broad Spectrum and SPF 15 (or higher), if used regularly, as directed, and in combination with other sun protection measures will help prevent sunburn, reduce the risk of skin cancer, and reduce the risk of early skin aging.

However, products that have SPF values between 2 and 14, while they may be labeled as Broad Spectrum if they pass the required test, cannot state that they reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging, when used as directed. Only products labeled Broad Spectrum and with SPF values of 15 or higher may make that statement.

The new regulations will become effective for most manufacturers in one year. Manufacturers with annual sales less than $25,000 have two years to comply.

The specific requirements of the final rule include:

  • Broad Spectrum designation. Sunscreens that pass FDA’s broad spectrum test procedure, which measures a product’s UVA protection relative to its UVB protection, may be labeled as “Broad Spectrum SPF [value]” on the front label.
  • Use claims. Only Broad Spectrum sunscreens with an SPF value of 15 or higher can claim to reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging if used as directed with other sun protection measures. Non-Broad Spectrum sunscreens and Broad Spectrum sunscreens with an SPF value between 2 and 14 can only claim to help prevent sunburn.
  • “Waterproof, “sweatproof” or “sunblock” claims. Manufacturers cannot label sunscreens as “waterproof” or “sweatproof,” or identify their products as “sunblocks,” because these claims overstate their effectiveness. Sunscreens also cannot claim to provide sun protection for more than 2 hours without reapplication or to provide protection immediately after application (for example– “instant protection”) without submitting data to support these claims and obtaining FDA approval.
  • Water resistance claims. Water resistance claims on the front label must indicate whether the sunscreen remains effective for 40 minutes or 80 minutes while swimming or sweating, based on standard testing. Sunscreens that are not water resistant must include a direction instructing consumers to use a water resistant sunscreen if swimming or sweating.
  • Drug Facts. All sunscreens must include standard “Drug Facts” information on the back and/or side of the container.

In addition to the final rule for sunscreen labeling, the FDA released three additional regulatory documents — a Proposed Rule, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for Dosage Forms, and a Draft Enforcement Guidance for Industry.

  • The proposed rule would limit the maximum SPF value on sunscreen labels to “50 +”, because, FDA says,  there is not sufficient data to show that products with SPF values higher than 50 provide greater protection for users than products with SPF values of 50.
  • The ANPR will allow the public a period of time to submit requested data addressing the effectiveness and the safety of sunscreen sprays and to comment on possible directions and warnings for sprays that the FDA may pursue in the future, among other issues regarding dosage forms for sunscreens.
  • The Draft Enforcement Guidance for Industry outlines information to help sunscreen product manufacturers understand how to label and test their products in light of the new final rule and other regulatory initiatives.
Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

FTC Finalizes Agreement with Oreck Settling Complaint Concerning Deceptive Health Claims

The FTC has finalized the order settling charges with Vacuum cleaner and air cleaner marketer made false and unproven claims that two of its Halo vacuum and the ProShield Plus air cleaner can reduce the risk of flu and other illnesses, and eliminate virtually all common germs and allergens. As part of the settlement, Oreck agreed to pay a $750,000 fine to the FTC.

The Halo is a $599.95 upright vacuum with a light chamber that generates ultraviolet light onto the floor while vacuuming. The ProShield Plus is a $399.95 portable air cleaner that filters air particles using an electrostatic charge.

According to the FTC complaint, Oreck used infomercials, traditional TV and print ads, in-store displays and online ads to promote the products, most of which highlighted germ-killing and illness-prevention claims. The FTC charged Oreck Corporation with making these allegedly false and deceptive claims about the two products, including:

The Halo and the ProShield Plus prevent or substantially reduce the risk of flu.

The Halo and the ProShield Plus prevent or substantially reduce the risk of other illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, molds, and allergens – such as the common cold, asthma, and allergy symptoms.

The Halo eliminates all or almost all common germs and allergens found on the floors in users’ homes, and is scientifically proven to do so.

The Halo’s ultraviolet light is effective against germs, bacteria, dust mites, mold, and viruses embedded in carpets.

The ProShield Plus eliminates all or almost all airborne particles from a typical household room under normal living conditions, and is scientifically proven to do so.

The complaint also alleges that Oreck provided deceptive advertisements to its franchised stores for their use in marketing the Halo and the ProShield Plus. By doing so, the FTC said, Oreck provided the means and instrumentalities to its distributors to deceive consumers.

Under the terms of the administrative settlement, Oreck is barred from making any of the allegedly deceptive claims in the complaint for any vacuum cleaner or any air cleaning product unless it has competent and reliable scientific evidence to support them. The company also is prohibited from making any claims about a product’s comparative health benefits without competent and reliable scientific evidence, and from misrepresenting the results of any scientific test, study, or research.

More information on the case is available in the original complaint, settlement agreement and print promotional materials exhibits.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Avon Fires Four Executives Suspected of Bribery Scheme in China Unit

Just over a year ago, Avon Products suspended four executives as the company investigated questionable payments to officials in various international markets. Last week, Avon disclosed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it had fired four executives accused of paying bribes to Chinese government employees and was continuing to investigate possible corruptions in other countries.

The fired executives were the former general manager for China; the former head of corporate affairs for China; the former head of finance for China; and the former head of global internal audit and security, who was previously head of finance for the Asia Pacific region.

According to Avon’s May 3, 2011, 10-Q filing, the internal investigation reviewed various expenses and books and records processes, including, “travel, entertainment, gifts, use of third party vendors and consultants and related due diligence, joint ventures and acquisitions, and payments to third-party agents and others, in connection with our business dealings, directly or indirectly, with foreign governments and their employees.”

The filing said the internal investigation is continuing and could result in additional “personnel actions.” In addition, Avon said that continues to develop and enhance its U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance-related training, FCPA third party due diligence program and other compliance-related resources.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

FDA and FTC Launch Joint Fraudulent STD Products Initiative

In a relatively rare joint-agency action, the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration have launched the “Fraudulent STD Products Initiative,” to identify and remove over-the-counter products that make unproven claims to prevent, cure, and/or treat sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

The products targeted have not been evaluated by the FDA for safety and effectiveness and may pose significant public health risk since they could delay proper medical treatment and help spread disease.

In the first step of the initiative, FDA and FTC have “co-signed” warning letters to manufacturers and others involved in the marketing of the fraudulent STD products. The letters list specific violations of FDA and FTC regulations, and the two agencies will monitor the responses and take additional action as needed to ensure enforcement. Among the products targeted are Medavir, Herpaflor, Viruxo, C-Cure, and Never An Outbreak.

The companies that received the warning letters claim that their products treat a range of STDs, including herpes, chlamydia, genital warts, HIV, and AIDS. Some of the products are marketed as dietary supplements, but since they are being sold to treat disease, the FDA considers them all drug products that fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and cannot be sold through interstate commerce without an FDA-approved new drug application.

On the FTC side of the initiative, FTC considers the marketing of the products a “scam” utilizing deceptive advertising practices. They are being advertised as offering health benefits that are not supported by scientific evidence and  thus violate the FTC act.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Changes for Independent Contractor Income Reporting in California

As part of its effort to keep track of parents who are delinquent or dodging child support payments, California requires that anyone conducting business in California and which retains independent contractors (called “service providers”) must report the service provider to the state within 20 days after the service provider earns income totaling $600.00 or more in a year, or when the business enters a contract with the service provider which calls for paying the independent contractor $600.00 or more.  

For details of the independent contractor registration requirement go to http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de542b.pdf and http://www.edd.ca.gov/payroll_taxes/new_hire_reporting.htm

As of March 1, 2011, California made reporting easier by updating its registration process to provide for electronic registration through its eServices for Business Program.  Electronic registration is available at: https://eddservices.edd.ca.gov/.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

FTC Seeks to Stop Fake News Sites’ Deceptive Claims About Acai Berry Weight Loss Products

The Federal Trade Commission has asked to federal courts to issue temporary restraining orders to stop 10 alleged “fake news” operations from using their Web sites to market  acai berry weight-loss products.  The FTC seeks to permanently stop these practices and has asked courts to freeze the operations’ assets pending trial.

According to the FTC, the websites that are intended to appear as if they belong to legitimate news organizations. However, the FTC maintains that the sites are simply advertisements using deceptive practices to entice consumers to buy the featured acai berry weight-loss products from other merchants.

The FTC complaints allege that the fake news sites have titles such as “News 6 News Alerts,” “Health News Health Alerts,” or “Health 5 Beat Health News.”  They often include the names and logos of major media outlets such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, USA Today, and Consumer Reports and falsely represent that the reports on the sites have been seen on these networks. 

The FTC is asking the courts to permanently bar the allegedly deceptive claims, and to require the companies to provide money for refunds to consumers who purchased the supplements and other products.  The FTC charges that the defendants:

  • make false and unsupported claims that acai berry supplements will cause rapid and substantial weight loss;
  • deceptively represent that  their websites are objective news reporters,  that independent tests demonstrate the effectiveness of the product, and that the comments following the “articles” on their websites reflect the views of independent consumers; and
  • fail to disclose their financial relationships to the merchants selling the products.

Continue reading ‘FTC Seeks to Stop Fake News Sites’ Deceptive Claims About Acai Berry Weight Loss Products’

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

FTC Charges Deceptive Privacy Practices in Google’s Rollout of Buzz

Google Inc. has agreed to settle an FTC complaint that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policy when it launched the Google Buzz social network last year.  In addition to alleged FTC privacy violations,  this is the first time the FTC has alleged violations of the substantive privacy requirements of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, a method for U.S. companies to transfer personal data lawfully from the European Union to the United States.

The settlement agreement bars the Google from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program and includes regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. This is the first time an FTC settlement order has required a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program to protect the privacy of consumers’ information.

According to the FTC complaint, on the day Buzz was launched through the Gmail service, users got a message announcing the new service and were given two options: “Sweet! Check out Buzz,” and “Nah, go to my inbox.” However, some Gmail users who clicked on “Nah…” were enrolled in certain features of the Google Buzz social network anyway. For those Gmail users who clicked on “Sweet!,” the FTC alleges that they were not adequately informed that the identity of individuals they emailed most frequently would be made public by default. Google also offered a “Turn Off Buzz” option that did not fully remove the user from the social network.

When Google launched Buzz, its privacy policy stated that “When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use.” The FTC complaint charges that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose – social networking – without obtaining consumers’ permission in advance.

The agency also alleges that by offering options like “Nah, go to my inbox,” and “Turn Off Buzz,” Google misrepresented that consumers who clicked on these options would not be enrolled in Buzz. In fact, they were enrolled in certain features of Buzz.

The complaint further alleges that a screen that asked consumers enrolling in Buzz, “How do you want to appear to others?” indicated that consumers could exercise control over what personal information would be made public. The FTC charged that Google failed to disclose adequately that consumers’ frequent email contacts would become public by default.

Finally, the agency alleges that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor privacy framework. The framework is a voluntary program administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission. To participate, a company must self-certify annually to the Department of Commerce that it complies with a defined set of privacy principles. The complaint alleges that Google’s assertion that it adhered to the Safe Harbor principles was false because the company failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a purpose different from that for which it was collected.

You can read the settlement agreement, as well as the original complaint and accompanying exhibits on our Web site.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

FDA Warns of Serious Health Problems from Soladek Vitamin Solution

Risk of serious health problems from dangerously high levels of vitamins A and D
After receiving seven reports of serious health problems in people using Soladek vitamin solution, the FDA is warning people The FDA is telling consumers to stop using the product.

Marketed by Indo Pharma, S.A. of the Dominican Republic company of the Dominican Republic, the FDA believes Soladek may contain dangerously high levels of vitamins A and D.

Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include weakness, fatigue, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, changes in mental status, increased blood pressure, abnormal heart rate or rhythm, kidney damage, and coma. Symptoms of vitamin A toxicity include anemia, anorexia, alopecia, joint pain, bone weakness, bulging eyes, liver abnormalities, and birth defects.

The problems reported include decreased renal function, elevated levels of calcium in the blood, fatigue, heart arrhythmia, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Soladek, sold in a box labeled in Spanish and containing a vial of the solution, is marketed with claims that the product treats various diseases and conditions. It cannot currently be marketed legally in the United States because U.S. law prohibits the sale of products claiming to treat disease conditions without review and approval by the FDA. 

However, the reports of adverse events and other information has led the FDA to conclude that Soladek may be available illegally in the country and therefore issued the warning.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Avoid Running Afoul of FTC Endorsement Guidelines

While the FTC settlement with Legacy Learning may seem unrelated to the direct selling indusry, the case actually is extremely relevant to MLM and direct selling companies.

Although you don’t typically see paid reviewers compensated for posting positive comments about direct selling companies’ products, it is common in the direct selling industry for companies to use testimonials to promote the sale of their products and services.

Oftentimes, those testimonials come from their distributors.  Just as the Legacy “affiliates” benefited financially from their reviews, MLM distributors have a direct financial interest in the sale of the products.

As the Legacy Learning case clearly illustrates, whenever a direct selling company does this, it is extremely important that the company disclose the relationship between the company and the person providing the testimonial if that person is a distributor for the company.  This can be accomplished by adding the title ‘Independent Company X Distributor’ to the identification of the person giving the testimonial.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Live
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz