Marketers of nutritional supplements often complain that they do not know what the FDA wants. Even after the agency sends a warning letter about misleading claims and advertising, its staff does not explain what would fall within the rules. That’s the reality; the FDA will tell you what’s wrong, not what’s right.

Through warning letters, the agency provides insight into how a marketer can fall afoul of the rules. Companies that examine why their competitors get chastised can apply the lessons to their Web sites, catalogs, labels and the like.  Washington attorney Ivan Wasserman looked at the 73 letters issued in 2009 (way, way up from 44 in 2008) and found that 72 related to claims on Web sites. Six involved claims made in metatags.

Lesson #1: The FDA is surfing the Web, checking not just product descriptions and benefits, but Googling for questionable SEO/SEM.

Wasserman’s list would rank the letters by claim problems in this order:

• Drug and disease claims: 72
• H1N1 virus claims: 37
• Other drug and disease claims: 20
• Heart disease and cardiovascular claims: 11
• Diabetes claims: 8
• Cold and flu claims (not H1N1): 8
• Cancer claims: 8

Lesson #2: The medical emergency that makes the most headlines gets the greatest scrutiny. In 2009, that was H1N1.

The FDA also sent 12 warnings letters related to claims made on labels and product labeling. Some of these may have echoed what was published on Web sites as manufacturers compounded their marketing errors.

Lesson#3: The FDA reads labels in the stores and on packages sent by mail. Adding an asterisked disclaimer to language on a label is no protection.

The FDA lived up to its announced commitment of greater enforcement and more scrutiny of the supplement industry. The agency could top the century mark in warning letters this year. Companies that have not recently reviewed their sites and labels would be wise to do so now before the mail carrier brings bad news.

• None Found

Ever since receiving FDA notices about their advertising generated from Google and similar searches, drugmakers have toned down their language and sought clarity on what is allowed. The discussion has ramifications for makers of nutritional supplements, because they could be next to face agency scrutiny for every ad created in response to a search for acai, reseveratrol and the like.

On Nov. 12, drugmakers and search-engine advertising agencies participated in about 30 presentations before the FDA. The hearing room was so crowded that most people seeking an audience seat were turned away. Here are two media takes:

(Yahoo’s David) Zinman testified that this shift to generic ads that don’t mention a brand name has created “a world where users have less transparency” because the ads deprive searchers of critical information about the landing pages. (MediaPost)

“We don’t think companies should be responsible for policing the entire Internet for information about their products,” said Johnson & Johnson executive Elizabeth Forminard.  (Reuters)

The key word is transparency, but Yahoo’s Zinman has it backwards. The FDA’s criticism was based on a lack of transparency in the form of who could take the drugs and what warnings should consumers receive before they clicked on the link. The FDA sent the warning letters because there was not enough information in the search-generated ads.

Forminard should walk down to FTC offices and read the new rules on Web marketing that take effect on Dec. 1; J&J will be responsible for a significant portion of what is posted on the Internet about its products.

There is more testimony today (Nov. 13) and the FDA will continue listening through February 2010. Nutritional supplement makers should watch for when they get dragged into the discussion. We all know that some vitamins are contraindicated for some people; will that fact have to be disclosed in your Google ad?

• None Found

Should there be a language standard in Google ads for supplements? Drug marketers may adopt rules given the close scrutiny that the FDA is giving search-generated ads for pharmaceuticals. The Interactive Advertising Bureau is asking the feds to endorse the use of standard formats online for drugs.

Why? Because seemingly harmless statements are incurring the FDA’s wrath. Case in point: A search for the pain medication Fentora generated this sponsored message from its maker, Cephalon: “Learn about treating breakthrough pain in patients with cancer.”

Harmless, right? No, said the FDA. According to a MediaPost report, the FDA deemed “such ad copy was deficient because it implied that all cancer patients with breakthrough pain could use Fentora.” The agency also said that the “implication was misleading because the drug is only indicated for people who can already tolerate around-the-click opioid therapy.”

The FDA warned a host of the world’s largest drugmakers that they too were running misleading ads. Unsure of how to act, the companies cut back on search-generated ads, with volume falling by about half. Now, the IAB wants a set of clear rules so that the drugmakers can resume online advertising without getting into trouble.

Standards may also help marketers of nutritional supplements. While drugmakers have a higher standard for publishing warnings and limitations on their products (see any Cialis ad), makers and marketers of nutraceuticals operate at their peril in making claims for ingredients. And sponsored links on Google could be one place they find trouble.

For example, a search on antioxidant produced this language in a sponsored link:

Get Healthy w/Natural Antioxidants
One Year Money Back Guarantee!”

Similarly, a search on glucosamine chondritin produced this ad language:

Drink Joint Juice and Leap More.
The 30-Day Joint Health Challenge!

How would the FDA or FTC view these claims getting healthy or jumping higher if they were made for drugs? The supplement industry may want an answer before agencies go on the offensive.

• None Found

New Rules: Endorsements & Testimonials in Marketing (The Business of Marketing)

“Those were the days – the days when a marketer could use an actual quote from a real person that has used your product as a marketing endorsement or testimonial to capture the aspirations of your potential customers. As of December 1, 2009, those days are gone.”

What You Need to Know About the New FTC Endorsement Rules — and Why (Ad Age)

“Revlon won’t be able to give away its product to mommy bloggers without asking them to disclose it in their writings. And if Jennifer Love Hewitt claims her blemish-free skin is the result of Proactiv, she had better be telling the truth.”

FTC Wants To Clarify: Bloggers Probably Won’t Get Dinged $11,000 (Washington Post)

“…the FTC would most likely send an [sic] warning letter to a blogger who pitches for Jiffy but doesn’t disclose receiving funds from Virginia peanut farmers.”

Do the FTC’s New Endorsement/Testimonial Rules Violate 47 USC 230? (Technology & Marketing Law blog)

“…the FTC apparently has made the same analytical error that the SEC recently made in the SEC’s proposal to hold securities issuers liable for third party content they link to.”

FTC Orders More Disclosure in Consumer Testimonials, Celebrity Endorsements (National Law Journal)

“(Attorney Anthony DiResta is) not as positively inclined toward the decision to do away with the “results may vary” disclaimer in favor of describing typical results. “Whenever there is going to be a claim of typicality, then there’s going to have to be substantiation.” And that can be costly and timely, DiResta added.”

• None Found

If your marketing plan includes raising awareness through bloggers, read the latest FTC announcement on disclosure of freebies. The agency says that bloggers who review products given to them for free should disclose that fact in some circumstances. Failure to do so will not affect the bloggers, but could trigger FTC action against marketers for what the agency considers deceptive practices. The good news: Chats and other unprepared communications among consumers are not considered corporate marketing. Read the entire notice, which goes into effect Dec. 1, here.

Given the unruliness of the Web, many companies have wondered whether solicited and unsolicited product reviews constituted marketing and advertising. For reviews by news media, the answer is no, the FTC says. For bloggers, the answer is maybe. Much depends on the nature of the blog, the FTC says. For example, what is the blog’s readership? Does the blogger disclose the product’s value? Does the blogger accept requests to product reviews on a regular basis?

More to the point, the FTC says, “the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.”

The FTC says it will examine each instance separately, which means for marketers more incremental understanding than firm rules at the outset. Expect the rules to change as the distinction between members of traditional news media and bloggers continues to erode. For now, the FTC expects companies that send samples and ask for reviews to tell the blogger that he or she should that they received the items gratis. The company must also monitor the blog to see that disclosure is made.

A company does not have to keep an eye on people who buy a supplement and write about whether they liked it. Nor does a company have to monitor the comments on that review. None of that is considered a product endorsement.

• None Found

Lesson #1: Do not copy someone else’s advertising. Just because the other companies make product claims does not mean it is OK. The FTC might penalize all of you. The FTC settled with Airborne for $30 million in August 2008 and with Rite-Aid, seller of Germ Defense, in July for $500,000.

Lesson #2: Have product claims reviewed before you advertise. The FTC said in a press release that it had charged CVS with “making false and deceptive advertising claims that using its product would reduce the risk of colds and protect against catching colds in crowded places, such as schools, airplanes, offices, health clubs, theaters, or restaurants.” The FTC said that “the company had no evidence that the products could boost the immune system or prevent colds.”

Lesson #3: The FTC is cracking down on supplement advertising. “With orders against Airborne, Rite Aid, and the one proposed against CVS, manufacturers and retailers are on notice that they have to tell the truth about what dietary supplements can and cannot do,” the FTC said in its release on the CVS settlement.

Lesson #4: Do not stretch the truth. The FTC is taking a highly critical view of product claims and scientific evidence. The agency has sued Rite Aid’s supplier of Germ Defense, Improvita Health Products Inc., claiming that company with deceptive acts or practices and with making false advertisements.

Lesson #5: Avoid the flu — and advertising related to it. This fall, the public faces the dual threat of seasonal flu and the H1N1 virus. A company that advertises a defense against either is likely to receive a call from the FTC.

• None Found

Attention copywriters. The FDA has taken out a bright red pen and is poised to mark up your product statements. The green shades (an antiquated description of newspaper copyeditors)  signaled much closer review of health claims with a warning to General Mills about oat cereal. The agency has also revised a health claim for selenium, rendering it useless to marketers. The size and stature of the companies involved suggests that all businesses, not just those operating in the back alleys, are subject to more intense scrutiny.

The FDA notified General Mills on May 5 that “your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.” On June 19, the agency changed the language for the prostate cancer health claim for selenium to to read as follows:

“Two weak studies suggest that selenium intake may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. However, four stronger studies and three weak studies showed no reduction in risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that selenium supplements reduce the risk of prostate cancer.”

After the new language was released, the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a complaint with the FDA. In a letter dated June 29, the organization said that Bayer’s claims for its One A Day Men’s Health Formula vitamin overstated the health benefits related to prostate cancer. That followed a complaint filed June 18 with the Federal Trade Commission about marketing claims for the same supplement.

Why should the FDA put a spotlight on the giant companies when a Google search for other products would turn up claims that deserve equal if not more attention? The FDA does not respond to such inquiries, but the question may contain the answer: When a teacher gets tough with the biggest kids in a classroom, the little ones take notice and get in line. And given that both General Mills and Bayer both have backed off their product statements, it would seem that the FDA is very much in control.

Will there continue to be companies that ignore or try to test regulations on product claims? Of course. But the vast majority of nutritional supplement companies that want to play within the rules may become more conservative. Or at least more wary of FDA watchdogs.

• None Found

Acai Palm

The acai berry has been credited by supplement companies with fighting cancer and other diseases.  The acai berry comes from the acai palm.

According to Steve Cox, BBB spokesperson, “many businesses across the country are using the same selling model for their acai products: they lure customers in with celebrity endorsements and free trial offers, and then lock them in by making it extremely difficult to cancel the automatic delivery of more acai products every month.” To read the press release, click here

• None Found