Category: FDA

FDA Requests Comments on WHO Recommendation to Classify Two Common Industrial Solvents as Psychotropic Substances

Beveridge & Diamond PC environmental and energy law firm

On January 27, 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) requested comments on a recommendation by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) to classify two common industrial solvents – gamma-butyrolactone (“GBL”) and 1,4-butanediol (“BDO”) – as psychotropic substances under Schedule I of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (“Psychotropic Convention”). See 80 Fed. Reg. 4283.  The comments will be used by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to prepare a recommendation on the WHO proposal to the Secretary of State, which will be binding on the U.S. representative to the upcoming 58th Session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (“CND”) in Vienna, Austria, on March 9-17, 2015.  At the Vienna meeting, CND may accept the WHO recommendations, reject the recommendations, or decide to control the chemicals in another way (i.e., under a different Schedule of the Convention).

FDA notes that if either chemical – or any of the other chemicals that are also recommended for listing, but are not addressed here because they have few, if any, legitimate industrial uses – are added by CND to Schedule I of the Psychotropic Convention, the U.S. will have to impose additional controls on the chemical(s) under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”).  Although FDA does not elaborate on what those controls might consist of, they would likely include additional restrictions on manufacture, distribution, import, and export of the chemicals, as well as enhanced recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For example, Article 2(7)(a)(i) of the Psychotropic Convention states that parties shall require licenses for manufacture, trade, and distribution of Schedule I substances.  Moreover, Article 7(a) provides that parties must “[p]rohibit all use [of Schedule I substances] except for scientific and very limited medical purposes by duly authorized persons,” although Article 2(7)(a) allows individual parties to notify the UN that they cannot do so as a result of “exceptional circumstances,” in which case the party need only “take into account” the prohibition “as far as possible.”

It is worth noting that GBL is already regulated under the CSA as a precursor to gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (“GHB”), which is a commonly abused central nervous system depressant drug that is currently regulated under Schedule II of the Psychotropic Convention and Schedule I of the CSA.  In particular, GBL is classified under the CSA as a “List I” precursor (not to be confused with a CSA Schedule I or other controlled substance), and thus is already subject to significant DEA controls.  In addition, some U.S. states and authorities in some other countries already regulate GBL directly as a controlled substance or its equivalent.  Nevertheless, the addition of GBL to Schedule I of the Convention would likely require new and more stringent controls in most jurisdictions.  Additional information on the basis for the WHO recommendation for GBL (including the chemistry of the chemical, abuse potential, legitimate uses, and current regulation around the world) can be found in the 2014 GBL Critical Review Report of the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence.

BDO is also a precursor to GHB, but is not currently regulated under the CSA.  It is regulated in several U.S. states and other countries as a precursor or controlled substance equivalent.  Once again, however, if it is added to Schedule I of the Psychotropic Convention, it will likely become subject to substantial additional restrictions.  Additional information on the basis for the WHO recommendation for BDO can be found in 2014 BDO Critical Review Report of the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence.

FDA will accept written comments on the WHO recommendations until February 26, 2015.  Requests for a public meeting will be accepted until February 6, 2015.

ARTICLE BY

Aaron H. Goldberg
OF
Beveridge & Diamond PC

Filthy Pharma – Whistleblowers and Current Good Manufacturing Practices

Mahany Law Firm

Last year a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia upheld the dismissal of a whistleblower suit alleging violations of current good manufacturing practices, known in the industry as “cGMP.” Filed under the federal False Claims Act, the whistleblower claimed that his former employer, Omnicare, violated a series of cGMP safety regulations requiring that penicillin and non-penicillin drugs be manufactured in complete isolation from one another. The regulations are designed to prevent cross contamination.

Because Omnicare’s drugs were not manufactured in isolation, the whistleblower claimed that they were not eligible for reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid programs. A judge in Baltimore dismissed the suit saying that this particular alleged cGMP was not one that could be prosecuted privately by a whistleblower.

The case was appealed and ultimately upheld by a three judge appeals panel last year. (United States ex. rel Barry Rostholder vs. Omnicare) Is this the end for “filthy pharma” cases under cGMP and the False Claims Act? No!

The Justice Department and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) support whistleblower filings for cGMP violations. In the aftermath of the Omnicare decision, however, it is prudent to have more than a mere allegation that products were not manufactured in properly segregated facilities.

In April 2013, the Justice Department announced that it would be taking “an especially hard look” at cGMP violations. Jeffrey Steger, deputy director of the Justice Department’s consumer protection unit, said the agency’s priority was to “identify and prosecute the most serious instances of food, drug and medical device violations… and in general [protect] consumers from adulterated or misbranded products…”

Notwithstanding the big loss for whistleblowers in Omnicare, the court did not slam shut the door on all cGMP violations. The court appears to have left the door open for cGMP violations that are significant and substantial and give rise to actual discrepancies in the functioning of the product.

What does this mean in practical terms? Merely claiming that a drug wasn’t manufactured properly may no longer be enough. To qualify for a whistleblower award, one should show both bad practices and that the product is tainted, adulterated, mislabeled, diluted or contaminated.

People with inside knowledge of adulterated drugs and cGMP violations may qualify for cash awards under state and federal False Claims Acts. Last year the federal government alone paid out $635 million to whistleblowers. Under the federal law, companies can be assessed triple damages and fined up to $11,000 per violation. Whistleblowers can receive up to 30% of whatever the government collects. (The average award is closer to 20%.)

ARTICLE BY

Brian Mahany
OF
Mahany Law

FDA Denies Citizen Petition’s Request to Ban Marketing of Non-Absorbable Surgical Mesh Products for Transvaginal Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Covington BUrling Law Firm

 

On July 14, 2014, FDA publicly posted its response denying Public Citizen’s August 2011 citizen petition concerning the marketing of non-absorbable surgical mesh products for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).  In its response, FDA took the position that a ban or recall of POP devices is not warranted at this time.

As background, in August 2011, Public Citizen filed a citizen petition asserting that POP devices “offer no clinically significant benefits in comparison to surgical repairs for POP performed without placement of surgical mesh” and “have high rates of serious complications.”  Public Citizen requested that the agency take the following actions: (1) ban the marketing of all available non-absorbable surgical mesh products for transvaginal repair of POP; (2) order all manufacturers to recall these products; and (3) classify all new non-absorbable surgical mesh products for transvaginal repair of POP as class III devices and approve the products only under a premarket approval application (PMA).

In its response, dated May 1, 2014, FDA denied the citizen petition.  While the agency rejected Public Citizen’s call for a ban or recall of POP devices, FDA noted that it shares some of the concerns outlined in the citizen petition and is taking actions to address these concerns.  In addition, the agency also determined that “a citizen petition is not the appropriate mechanism for requesting a reclassification of a device.”

FDA explained that in September 2011, the agency convened an advisory committee meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel to discuss the safety and efficacy of transvaginal surgical mesh products used for repair of POP.  The Panel determined that “a favorable benefit-risk profile” for these devices “had not been well-established” and that the devices should be reclassified from class II to class III.  The Panel also recommended that manufacturers conduct postmarket studies of currently marketed surgical mesh products for transvaginal repair of POP.  As of May 2014, FDA had issued 126 postmarket surveillance orders to 33 manufacturers of these devices.

FDA explained that it has evaluated information from the Panel’s recommendations and the published scientific literature and has tentatively determined that the device should be reclassified as a class III device.  On May 1, 2014, FDA published a proposed order in the Federal Register to reclassify surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP from class II to class III.  On the same day, FDA published another proposed order in the Federal Register to require the filing of a PMA following the reclassification of the device to class III.  Thus, although FDA did not grant Public Citizen’s third request, the agency “initiated the process that could ultimately result” in reclassification of the device and the requirement to submit a PMA for these devices.

Article By:

Colleen Kelly
Of:
Covington & Burling LLP

FDA Issues Guidance for Safety of Nanomaterials in Cosmetic Products (as well as in Food)

GT Law

For the last seven or so years, the U.S. federal government and some state governments have been collecting cradle-to-grave information regarding nanomaterials. The data collection call-ins were intended to create a collaborative, scientific dialogue with the goal of examining relevant information, and identifying information gaps and ways to address those gaps.

Last week, the FDA issued guidance documents for both cosmetic and food manufacturers. The guides are one more step intended to assist industry and other stakeholders in identifying the potential safety issues of nanomaterials in consumer products and in developing a framework for evaluating them. It also provides contact information for those who wish to discuss safety considerations regarding the use of specific nanomaterials in cosmetic products with the FDA.

If your company is considering the use of nanomaterials in its products, it is important to recognize that although nanotech cosmetics are still subject to the same legal requirements as other cosmetics, in that they do not require premarket approval, the products must be safe under customary usage conditions and properly labeled. Additionally, although the FDA has explained that the current safety framework used for conventional cosmetics is still appropriate for cosmetics using nanotech, companies should keep in mind the unique properties of nanomaterials when testing safety. Ultimately, as this guidance reminds, companies are legally liable for ensuring the safety of their products. As to food products, the FDA encourages manufacturers to contact the agency early in the development process to assist in assessing the safety and potential issues with using nanotechnology.

Read the complete press announcement from the FDA here.

Article By:

Angela Diesch
Of:
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Making Use of Social Media: FDA Releases Two Draft Guidelines on the Use of Social Media Platforms by Drug and Device Manufacturers

MintzLogo2010_Black

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released two long-awaited draft guidance documents for the drug and device industries revolving around the use of social media platforms by drug and device manufacturers — Internet/Social Media Platforms: Correcting Independent Third Party Misinformation About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices (“Guidance on Correcting Third Party Misinterpretation”), and Internet/Social Media Platforms with Character Space Limitations – Presenting Risk and Benefit Information for Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices (“Guidance on Presenting Risk/Benefit Information”).

As the titles suggest, the purpose of the documents is to clarify how social media may be utilized by drug and medical device companies for the voluntary correction of misinformation provided by independent third parties, as well as for presenting promotional messaging regarding risk/benefit information of products. But while the guidelines provide helpful clarification regarding how such platforms may be utilized, they each also raise considerations that companies should take heed of before beginning to use these outlets, and should be factored into a company’s social media guidelines.

Internet/Social Media Platforms: Correcting Independent Third Party Misinformation About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices

As an initial matter, the Guidance on Correcting Third Party Misinterpretation (“Draft Guidance #1”) establishes two points: first, Draft Guidance #1 only applies to misinformation posted to Internet-based platforms by an independent third party, therefore excluding content provided by the company itself, its employees and agents. Second, Draft Guidance #1 establishes that the exception to a company’s obligation to respond to or correct misinformation only applies to information that is “truly independent,” for example posted by an independent third party to an unaffiliated platform or a platform providing content that is not controlled by the company.

However, Draft Guidance #1 does not completely exclude company-operated sites. In stark contrast with the company’s obligation to correct content when that content is “owned, controlled, created …influenced or affirmatively adopted or endorsed by, or on behalf of, the firm,” where such corrections are obligatory and also carry advertising and labeling regulatory requirements, Draft Guidance #1 does not hold companies responsible for correcting misinformation where a company owns or operates an online platform that allows for user-generated content (chat room, etc.) over which a company does notexert control. However, Draft Guidance #1 cautions that such a site should contain an “overarching and conspicuous statement that the firm did not create or control the [user-generated content].”

If a company chooses to voluntarily respond to truly independent misinformation, Draft Guidance #1 sets parameters on the process for taking correction action, which should either be by (i) providing appropriate truthful corrective information or (ii) providing “a reputable source for correct information, such as the firm’s contact information. In either approach, in order to constitute “appropriate corrective information” a firm’s communication should denote the affiliation of the corrective post with the company, and be:

  • relevant and responsive to the misinformation;
  • limited and tailored to the misinformation;
  • non-promotional in nature, tone, and presentation;
  • accurate;
  • consistent with the FDA-required labeling for the product;
  • supported by sufficient evidence; and
  • posted either in conjunction with or reference the misinformation.

In acknowledgement of the vast nature of the Internet and certain forums and the reality that it may be impractical for a company to attempt to correct all misinformation about its products that may appear, Draft Guidance #1 stipulates that companies do not need to address all incorrect information that may be posted regarding a particular drug or device, even if a company elects to correct a selective portion. When addressing any misinformation, therefore, Draft Guidance #1 recommends that a company create a figurative box around the particular misinformation and portion of the forum it intends to correct, and then revise all the incorrect information within that defined boundary, which should include also correcting positive misinformation or exaggerations. Following corrective action, while Draft Guidance #1 does not hold companies responsible for monitoring the communication, it does recommend that companies keep records that include (i) the date, location, and content of the misinformation; (ii) when the wrongful information was discovered; and (iii) a description of the corrective information provided, including the date it was furnished.

Finally, Draft Guidance #1 suggests that the FDA does not intend to object if a firm voluntarily corrects misinformation and the voluntarily provided corrective information does not satisfy otherwise applicable regulatory labeling or advertising requirements, so long as the corrective information is not non-truthful, misleading, or in a manner other than recommended by Draft Guidance #1. However, companies should take heed that any corrective action that goes beyond merely providing accurate information that is specifically tailored to the misinformation it is addressing (i.e., including slogans or promotional information) must comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to labeling or advertising.

While helpful for establishing clearly both the parameters for correctly responding to misinformation as well as for clearly limiting a company’s obligation to respond to any or all misinformation posted by an independent third party, the Guidance on Correcting Third Party Misinterpretation also reminds companies to take caution when doing so to ensure that their responses are narrowly tailored enough to fall under the purview of the guidance and outside regulatory requirements. That caution includes carefully considering where misinformation clearly constitutes “truly independent” information. Companies should be mindful of the reality that “truly independent” is not a concept that is well defined, and should thus be cautious before asserting that certain misinformation may fall under the purview of Draft Guidance #1 as the FDA advances a broad interpretation of when a company is responsible for taking corrective action.

Internet/Social Media Platforms with Character Space Limitations — Presenting Risk and Benefit Information for Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices

Prepared by the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion, the second guidance issued by the FDA last week, the Guidance on Presenting Risk/Benefit Information (“Draft Guidance #2”), addresses the parameters around presenting benefits and risks information on Internet and social media platforms with character spacing limitations, such as microblogs (e.g., Twitter) and online paid search (e.g., “sponsored links” on search engines such as Google). Draft Guidance #2 clearly establishes that, as a threshold matter, the character restrictions do not eliminate the company’s responsibility to ensure its promotional messaging complies with all applicable regulations related to advertising and labeling, and cautions that such forms of media may not be appropriate for promotion of certain products, such as those with complex indications or risk profiles.

For companies that choose to make product benefit claims on character-space-limited communication sites, while each may reasonably use common abbreviations (including scientific and medical abbreviations), punctuation marks, and other symbols to comply with space constraints, Draft Guidance #2 presents a broad set of rules that must be satisfied by each communication relating to both risk and benefit information.

Benefit Information

  • Benefit information should be accurate, non-misleading, and reveal material facts within each individual message or tweet.
  • Benefit information should be included with risk information in the same message. Do not spread benefit and risk information across multiple messages or tweets.

Risk Information

  • Risk information should be included with benefit information in the same message. Do not spread risk and benefit information across multiple messages or tweets.
  • Risk information should be “comparable in scope” to the benefit information, and should, at minimum, include the most serious risks, e.g., those included in a boxed warning or known to be life-threatening, among others, associated with the product. To determine whether risk information is “comparable in scope” to the benefit information, the FDA weighs (i) whether the risk information “qualifies any representations made about the product,” and (ii) whether the risk information is presented with a “prominence and readability comparable to the benefit claims about the product.” While risk disclosures may be concise when paired with benefit information, a hyperlink to a complete, and exclusive, discussion of risks should be included and appropriately titled and not promotional in nature.
  • Both the proprietary and established (generic) name for the product should be included within the character-space limited communication and on each landing page associated with each hyperlink in that initial communication. Draft Guidance #2 recommends that the landing page be devoted exclusively to the communication of risk information about the product and not to the promotional home page. Such landing page should also prominently display quantitative ingredient and dosing information for prescription drugs.

In light of the restrictions set forth by Draft Guidance #2, while companies should feel comfortable taking advantage of current social media platforms including those with character restrictions, they should also ensure that the parties responsible for drafting any such posts are aware of the parameters placed on such communications. A hypothetical example provided by Draft Guidance #2 exemplifies some of the potential disadvantages of such messaging:

NoFocus (rememberine HCl) for mild to moderate memory loss-May cause seizures in patients with a seizure disorder www.nofocus.com/risk

While the message complies with each of Draft Guidance #2’s directives, the balancing of risk and benefit information in a space restricted communication may have the unintended result of highlighting risk over benefit. Additionally, from a practical standpoint, the space constraints may prevent the inclusion of all necessary information. If a company cannot conclude that “adequate” benefit and risk information (along with other required disclosure) may be communicated in the same message or tweet — particularly at 140 characters — Draft Guidance #2 recommends that the company reconsider whether the use of the particular platform is the appropriate forum for the dissemination of such messaging before making use of such forums, once again in particular for drugs with complex indications or high risk profiles.

As a general conclusion, while the Guidance on Presenting Risk/Benefit Information is self-admittedly limited in scope, and does not address “promotion via product websites, webpages on social networking platforms (e.g., [Facebook, Twitter, YouTube]), and online web banners,” it undeniably provides helpful direction for drug and device companies’ use of social media sites for promotional messaging where communications are restricted to a limited number of characters, as well as highlighting how the FDA may intend to regulate such use. Companies should pay careful attention to the restrictions while taking advantage of the opportunities these social media platforms offer, and should take care to ensure to instill clear policies that comply with Draft Guidance #2 that are available to, and understood by, individuals tasked with producing and monitoring social media content for the company.

The FDA will be accepting comments on both Draft Guidance #1 and Draft Guidance #2 until September 16, 2014.

Article By:

Cynthia J. Larose
Christine M. Wahr
Of:
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

New York Federal Court Rejects Preemption and Primary Jurisdiction Arguments in “All Natural” Case

GT Law

In our February 12, 2014 post, entitled “Consumer Class Actions Trending From Attacking ‘All Natural’ to ‘Raw,’” we addressed whether claims challenging consumer product advertising as “all natural” were preempted in the absence of specific guidance from the FDA and the mixed results the argument has produced.  In Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co. et al., 2014 WL 1998235 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2014), the Court denied a motion to dismiss based on preemption and primary jurisdiction where the plaintiff alleged that it was deceived into purchasing Smucker’s Crisco oil by “all natural” advertising where the product contained genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, because the FDA has not addressed the use of the term “all natural” in this context.

All Natural

Smuckers argued that FDA policies regarding the use of the term “natural” preempt state law false advertising claims based on this language, even if those policies are informal.  However, the Court found, “no federal specifications exist here.”  Id. at *3.  And “[e]ven if an informal FDA definition does exist, the term ‘natural’ ‘may be used in numerous contexts and may convey different meanings depending on that context[]” [citation,] [and] “that is one of the reasons the FDA has never adopted a formal definition.”  Id. (citing Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc.,<“> No. CV 13–5213, 2013 WL 5764644, at *5 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 25, 2013)).  In addition, “the FDA has declined to consider the specific issue here:  whether and under what circumstances food products containing ingredients produced using genetically engineered ingredients may or may not be labeled ‘natural.’”  Id. (citation and some internal quotation marks omitted).  “As a result,” the Court found, “any general, informal FDA guidance is not controlling.”  Id. (citing In re Frito–Lay N. Am., Inc. All Natural Litig., No. 12–md–2413,2013 WL 4647512, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2013)).

The Court also rejected Smucker’s argument that the FDA’s decision not to impose a labeling requirement for foods with GMOs supports preemption, stating, “[i]n effect, Defendant interprets the FDA’s lack of action as approval for Defendant’s use of the phrase ‘All Natural’ to describe foods containing GMO [but] [i]n reality, the FDA has stayed silent because it ‘operates in a world of limited resources’ where it ‘must prioritize which issues to address.’”  Id. (citation omitted.)

In addition, the Court found Smucker’s primary jurisdiction argument unavailing:  “three federal district judges previously referred the question of whether foods containing GMOs may be labeled ‘natural’ to the FDA under the primary jurisdiction doctrine [and on] January 6, 2014, the FDA responded and explicitly declined to make such a determination.”  Id. at *4 (citing January 6, 2014 FDA Letter).  “The FDA’s refusal to consider the question demonstrates that ‘resort to the agency at this time would be unavailing,’ [citation] and therefore weighs against applying the primary jurisdiction doctrine.”  Id.

This case signals that, until the FDA acts, preemption and primary jurisdiction arguments against “all natural” advertising of products with GMOs may be more and more challenging.

Article By:

Jordan D. Grotzinger
Of:
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

California Proposes Enhanced Prop. 65 Warnings and Possible Online Disclosures – Dietary Supplements and Foods Specially Targeted

GT Law

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)announced on March 7, 2014, that it is considering implementation of the most significant changes to Prop. 65 regulations in more than two decades.  OEHHA has posted the draft regulation and Initial Statement of Reasons on its website.

Passed by voters in 1986, Prop. 65 requires warnings prior to exposures to chemicals listed by OEHHA as “known to the State” to cause cancer or reproductive harm.  The law, which carries the potential penalty of $2,500 for each violation, may be and routinely is enforced by entrepreneurial private plaintiffs who are permitted to bring legal actions against alleged violators with minimal evidence.  OEHHA’s proposed regulations will affect almost every industry subject to Prop. 65 and nearly every aspect of compliance.  In all but a few cases, OEHHA’s changes have the capacity to make compliance with Prop. 65 costlier, riskier, and more disruptive to companies doing business in California.

Four Important Provisions Affecting Food and Dietary Supplements

In its far-reaching proposal, OEHHA aims a number of significant changes directly at food and dietary supplement manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.  Four specific proposals stand out as impactful for the industry:

  1. Chemical Identification: Under OEHHA’s proposal, warning labels would have to specifically identify the chemical in question if it is on a proposed list of 12 “common” substances.  One substance on OEHHA’s list, lead, is sometimes naturally occurring in the ingredients used to produce dietary supplements and has been the source of considerable litigation and expense for the industry.  In OEHHA’s draft regulation, products requiring a warning for lead would have to “conspicuously” state its presence in the product.
  2. Display Requirements: For foods not already subject to a consent judgment, the “safe-harbor” warning language must also be enhanced with specific information about the chemical in question, specific text sizing, and the phrase “Cancer [and/or] Reproductive Hazard.” Even where a food supplier has data showing that the chemical poses no actual health threat, a private plaintiff may still litigate knowing that the costly burden of showing no significant risk is borne by defendants.  Unless modified or declared preempted by federal law, OEHHA’s regulation would virtually ensure that this language will be required for food and supplement packaging in California.
  3. Online Reporting: OEHHA would also mandate reporting of exposure data to the agency for its website if a new Prop. 65 warning does not contain 10 details specified by OEHHA.  The details include, among others, the name of the chemical at issue, anticipated exposure routes, exposure levels, and options for minimizing exposure.  Businesses that fail to provide the required detail, no matter how misleading it might be to the consumer, must disclose the additional information to OEHHA and will likely see such data published online.
  4. More Litigation: Despite statements from the agency to the contrary, OEHHA’s complex rules would encourage even more litigation from an already active community of plaintiffs.  OEHHA’s draft litigation reform, a “cure” or fix-it period for retailers with fewer than 25 employees, would do little to stem the current tide of lawsuits, the vast majority of which are ultimately directed at and defended by suppliers.  Additionally, by replacing the generic safe-harbor warning with specific requirements, a regulatory safe-harbor warning would no longer provide a safe harbor from liability or deter plaintiffs from alleging violations for exposures to unspecified or newly listed chemicals.

What You Can Do

Businesses which stand to be affected by OEHHA’s plans, including those operated out of state, have an opportunity to voice their concerns to the agency.

OEHHA will hold a public workshop on April 14, 2014 to discuss the proposed regulations.  In addition, OEHHA is accepting written comments from the public until May 14, 2014.  Unless OEHHA is convinced to delay or withdraw its plans, formal regulations will likely be proposed in the summer of 2014.

Because OEHHA’s proposals are currently in the preliminary stages, interested parties have a time critical opportunity to engage the agency and encourage it to address specific concerns.  Companies that manufacture distribute, or retail dietary supplements in California should consider retaining experienced counsel to analyze the impact of the proposals on their business and to participate in the public comment period on their behalf.   Given the potentially far-reaching consequences of the proposed changes on the individual companies and the industry at large, interested parties should be diligent in bringing their concerns to OEHHA as early and as persuasively as possible.

Article By:

James Mattesich
Justin J. Prochnow
Anthony J. Cortez
Greg Sperla
Of:
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

FDA (Food and Drug Adminsitration) Releases Final Electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR) Rule and Deadline for Compliance

MintzLogo2010_Black

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced and is promulgating today the Final Rule on Electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR). Originally proposed in 2009, the rule is now final and a deadline for compliance has been identified. The rule impacts device manufacturers and importers and mandates electronic submission of individual medical device adverse event reports. User facilities may continue to submit only written reports.

As of August 14, 2015, postmarket medical device adverse event reports by manufacturers and importers must be submitted only electronically to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health via the Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG). The ESG is used for all forms of electronic filing to the FDA; information specific to medical device submissions is available here. Guidance about the eMDR is available here.

It is recommended you review your current system for submitting reports, and if you are not already utilizing the ESG for all reporting, develop a plan now for integrating the electronic process into your operations.

Article by:

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Supreme Court Will Rule on Whether Agency-Approved Beverage Label Can Be Challenged as ‘False Advertising’ in Federal Court

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

On January 10, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by Pom Wonderful LLC against The Coca-Cola Company.  The Court will examine whether Pom can bring a federal Lanham Act false advertising claim against a Minute Maid juice product label that had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  (Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., U.S. Supreme Court case no. 12-761).

At issue in the lawsuit is a Minute Maid label for “Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices.”  The label presents the words “Pomegranate Blueberry” in larger type than the remainder of the phrase.  Pom claimed that the label was misleading because the product contains 0.3 percent pomegranate juice and 0.2 percent blueberry juice.

A California federal trial court and the 9th Circuit federal appeals court in California both ruled that Pom could not bring a Lanham Act false advertising claim against the label, since it had been specifically examined and approved by the FDA.  Pom has argued that the decisions were contrary to established law in other U.S. courts, and that federal regulations establish a floor –but not a ceiling — on what an advertiser is required to do to avoid a claim that the advertising is false and misleading.  Coca-Cola has argued that product labeling that is specifically authorized by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and approved by the FDA cannot be charged as false or misleading under another federal statute such as the Lanham Act.

Although the question before the Supreme Court is whether a private party can bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the FDCA, the Supreme Court’s decision could potentially have significant implications for the alcohol beverage industry.  For example:

  • If the Supreme Court rules that a competitor cannot bring a Lanham Act claim against a label that has been approved by the FDA, a natural question is whether the same rule will apply with regard to alcohol beverage labels that have been reviewed and approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) (by its terms, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act does not preempt the Lanham Act); and
  • If a Lanham Act claim would be barred against labels approved by TTB, a question may arise about whether a Lanham Act claim would be barred on elements of the label that TTB does not specifically review as a matter of policy – such as contrast, size and placement of label elements.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear argument this spring and decide the case by June 2014.  Depending on the decision, alcohol beverage industry members could find they have additional insulation against a federal false advertising claim, but they may likewise be limited in bringing a federal false advertising lawsuit against a competitor’s label that has been approved by TTB.

Article by:

Robert W. Zelnick

Of:

McDermott Will & Emery

FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Declines Courts’ Requests to Define “Natural” with respect to GMO (Genetically-Modified Organisms) Foods

Barnes Burgandy Logo

The FDA recently issued a letter to three federal district court judges declining the courts’ requests to adopt a definition of “natural” or to state whether the terms “natural” or “all natural” can be used to refer to foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to help resolve pending consumer class actions over the term. The FDA cited three reasons for its decision not to define the term(s): (1) it would prefer to use a public, administrative process than to define the term in the context of private litigation; (2) the definition implicates other agencies, most notably, the USDA; and, (3) the FDA has limited resources and other matters currently take priority.

As noted in our August 2013 Alert on the issue, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of theNorthern District of California started the trend in Cox v. Gruma Corp., a case in which the plaintiff alleges that Gruma’s use of “all natural” on its tortilla shells violates various consumer protection laws because they contain genetically-modified corn. In Van Atta v. General Mills, pending in Colorado and involving GMOs in granola products, a magistrate judge agreed with Judge Rogers and recommended a stay of proceedings in the case pending the FDA’s response to Judge Rogers’s request. Most recently, in Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., also pending in the Northern District of California and involving GMOs in various soups, a different judge also stayed the case pending the FDA’s response.

These cases are potentially quite important because there are many pending consumer class actions, particularly in California, over whether the use of some variant of the term “all natural” is proper in light of one or more ingredients in the food at issue. Indeed, some quip that food labeling litigation has replaced tobacco and asbestos as the favorite category of suit for the plaintiffs’ bar. Thus, the FDA’s response to the request by these courts, and the courts’ further actions based on the response, could resolve or guide the resolution of many of these cases.

In a related development, the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association has recently filed a citizen’s petition asking FDA to state that GMO foods may be labeled “natural.” The FDA alluded to the possible filing of this petition in its letter, but did not state whether it is willing to take up the issue using that procedure, which does allow for public comment.

A copy of the FDA’s letter can be found here.

Article by:

Of:

Barnes & Thornburg LLP