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

In a year when initial public offerings and acquisitions were almost unheard of, the supplement business saw many go public and get bought.  Only iPhone apps fared better, and not by much.

Meanwhile, the regulatory landscape tightened, but not as much as expected under a Democratic administration.  While both foods and drugs had their shares of scandals, supplement makers passed their early cGMP inspections and emerged unscathed.

Looking ahead to 2010 we envision many new challenges and opportunities for the supplement business.  In no particular order, here’s what to look for in the year ahead:

Sports supplements face stiffer regulation. Under several proposals currently being circulated in Congress, the Drug Enforcement Administration would be given increased powers to schedule substances that are chemically similar to or precursors of human growth hormone effectively banning them from use without a prescription.  Some sports supplement makers will need to reformulate their products or face enforcement action from DEA, an agency far more aggressive than the FDA supplement companies are used to.

CGMP regulations impact small supplement businesses. In June companies with 20 and fewer employees become subject to the FDA’s dietary supplement CGMP regulations.  Companies that rely on contract manufacturing will receive a rude awakening as they are subject to regulatory scrutiny they have never previously experienced.  Small supplement makers should begin to prepare themselves by implementing standard operating procedures to comply with the new cGMP rules.  Many will fail to do so and by year’s end fewer small supplement companies will be around to see 2011 as a result.

Investors get serious about supplements. Expect more merger and acquisition activity in 2010 with special emphasis on venture capital firms seeking new opportunities for profit in the supplement space.  Ingredient suppliers, contract manufacturers, marketers and retailers are all in play.

Regulators take aim at Internet supplement businesses. Armed with new rules and increased funding, regulators at the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration and state attorneys general will step up their attack on supplements sold as drugs and deceptive and unfair sales practices.  The FTC endorsement rule will be used against bloggers and the companies that sponsor them.  Learn and follow the rules now or get caught violating them later.

By all accounts 2010 will be a great year to not just survive but thrive.  We hope to be there with you and look forward to your comments in the year ahead.

• None Found

Jin Hua Qing Gan Fang made in lab.

The rules are different here in the United States. Hyde Park Holistic Center in Cincinnati recently received a warning letter from the Food & Drug Administration that read like many others having to do with nutritional supplements and the H1N1 virus. In China, though, the same admonishment could not be heard.

First, the FDA’s message to Hyde Park, which operates the Web site drdahlman.com: “The FDA has determined that your website offers a product for sale that is intended to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat or cure the H1N1 Flu Virus in people. This product has not been approved, cleared, or otherwise authorized by FDA for use in the diagnosis, mitigation. prevention, treatment, or cure of the H1N1 Flu Virus.”

The product in question is “4 Life Transfer Factor Plus Tri Factor,” which is sold in a password-protected store on the site. The product apparently supports immune system health or, as the FDA quotes Dr. Dahlman on one of his Web pages, “I firmly believe that use of this product will sufficiently upregulate your immune system and should be a primary part of your strategy to avoid the dangers of swine flu (H1N1 virus).”

It’s worth noting that Dr. Dahlman is not an M.D. His online biography says he is “a Chiropractic Physician with a degree in Nutrition, is Director of The Hyde Park Holistic Center in Cincinnati, Ohio and specializes in treatment of chronic health problems using nutritional, herbal and homeopathic therapies.”

If Dr. Dahlman were in China, he might have gotten praise rather than criticism. On Dec. 16, Chinese medical specialists said they had developed a Chinese herbal medication to treat H1N1. An article from the official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, quotes Wang Chen, president of Beijing’s Chaoyang Hospital, as saying the medication “can shorten patients’ fever period and improve their respiratory systems. Doctors have found no negative effects on patients who were treated in this way.”

The article adds that the herbal formula, called “Jin Hua Qing Gan Fang,” had been tested at 11 hospitals on 410 people who exhibited mild symptoms of H1N1. With success in treatment over a five-month period, the makers were seeking international patents.

The herbal medication is being positioned as a lower-cost alternative to Tamiflu, which WHO recommends for the treatment of H1N1.
Interestingly, the article quotes Cris Tunon, a senior officer at the WHO office in China, as saying that “WHO welcomes the clinical results.”

It’s unlikely the herbal medication would get the same greeting in the United States. The FDA has warned a number of companies with herbal products to stop making H1N1-related claims. Twice in 2009, the AHPA has advised against the use of dietary supplements to prevent or treat the flu. What happens when “Jin Hua” is marketed on American shores?

• None Found

The Feds are again looking at how companies market foods to kids. Concerned by reports on child obesity, the FTC in 2010 will take a look at what the food companies sell for kids and how those products are marketed. Makers of healthful foods would be wise to contribute to the testimony in advance of possible congressional action that could give their products a competitive advantage.

David C. Vladeck, director of the FTC’s consumer protection bureau, told the Wall Street Journal that the proposals would not be regulations and that Congress may ultimately write the new rules.The Journal says the recommendations will be sent to Congress after a public comment period.

The food industry seems to be taking the possibility of legislation seriously. General Mills has announced plans to reduce sugar content in three cereals, Trix, Cocoa Puffs, and Lucky Charms. Campbell Soup Co. says it will cut the amount of sodium in canned SpaghettiOs by up to 35 percent.

That begins to address one-half of the equation. University of Arizona professor Dale Kunkel has found in a study that children would have to watch 10 hours of television aimed at audiences 11 years and younger to see one commercial for healthful food. During that time, they would see 55 commercials for junk food. He took the results of his study to Washington and testified before the FTC on Dec. 15.

After the study was released, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, expressed disappointment in the food industry’s efforts to self-regulate.

“When private interests work against the public good, government is obliged to act,” he said in a statement. “We need to examine this issue more closely and figure what needs to be done to achieve balance on the airwaves so that we can improve the health and wellness of our children.”

• 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

What has not changed since our first blog on Aug. 2, 2005, is our mission. So it is worth republishing the first entry by our founder, Joel Rothman. For those of you who were not present for the launch, here is the original post:

Welcome friends to the first legal weblog devoted entirely to the nutritional supplement industry. This first post will give you the what and why of this blog, as in what I am going to write about here and why I am writing it. For more information on who I am, click the “About” link on this page.

Okay, what is this blog about? It’s about all forms of nutritional and dietary supplements, vitamins, neutraceuticals and cosmeceuticals, the laws that regulate them, and court cases concerning those laws. It’s about laws regulating supplement safety, advertising and sales. It’s about lawsuits brought by those claiming to have been injured by supplements, and lawsuits brought by and against companies in the supplement business. It’s about the claims dietary supplement manufacturers make in big bold letters on the front of the box, and the disclaimers in tiny letters on the back of the box. It’s about other things too that strike my fancy. So that’s the what.

The why is pretty simple. From time to time I represent nutritional supplement manufacturers. In the past I have found it difficult to get current, topical and useful information about the laws and cases that matter to my clients. Other lawyers I know have also told me that there is really no place to go on the web that addresses legal matters of concern to this young and growing industry. So, I hope to provide some measure of assistance to those like me looking for a resource like this.

Now, a word about what this blog is not. Since I have already said that I have clients in the business, you might have figured out that this blog is not a place to find a lawyer to sue supplement manufacturers because you think you got sick or hurt from taking dietary supplements or using cosmeceuticals. There are lots of lawyers out there who I am sure will listen to you and they are easy enough to find. This is also not a blog that rails against nutritional supplements and the people who make them. This is not a blog about the pros and cons, this is a blog about the legal environment in which nutritional supplements are made and sold. If you have something to say about what is good or bad about a particular pill, creme or protein shake, we are interested only if there are legal implications to it. This blog is also not legal advice, so don’t use it as such and we disclaim any liability to you and yours should you disregard this warning.

So there you have the what and the why. Again, the who is linked on the sidebar. Now, let’s get busy with some content!

• None Found

The statement also reads: “Products like these are frequently marketed as alternatives to anabolic steroids for increasing muscle mass and strength and are sold both online and in retail stores.  They are often promoted to athletes to improve sports performance and to aid in recovery from training and sporting events.  Although products containing synthetic steroids are frequently marketed as dietary supplements, they are NOT dietary supplements, but instead are unapproved new drugs that have not been reviewed by the FDA for safety and effectiveness.”

The Council for Responsible Nutrition sent out an alert immediately following the FDA announcement, with phone numbers (866-359-3719 U.S. and 203-369-0144 international) for anyone to call and listen to a recording of the conference.

The seriousness of the FDA warning, coupled with heighten media exposure of the dangers that high school athletes face from taking steroids, may lead to action by regulators, sports associations and others. The heightened public awareness will likely lead to more consumer questions.

• None Found

Outside the industry, the viewpoints were more pragmatic. Scot Long, an exercise physiologist and professor from Mississippi, weighed in, writing: “Bottom line, do I think that Hydroxycut is an evil product? No. I think many people abused this product (taking too much) and some may have even had pre-existing medical conditions. Do I recommend it to my students, clients and friends? Of course not. I do think, however, that Iovate Health Sciences could have made a safer product. But it shouldn’t shoulder all the blame.”

Marion Nestle, author of “Food Politics,”  wrote in her San Francisco Chronicle column, “I freely concede that most supplement companies make reliable products, but without federal oversight how is anyone – even a store clerk – supposed to know which ones they are. Some clerks may know their business, but in my experience few think critically about the products they are selling and most appear to take the manufacturers’ words at face value.”

After a Hydroxycut recall article was posted on FitSugar.com, a commenter who goes by the name Mondaymoos offered this first-person experience : “I never took diet pills for the purpose of losing weight. Me, and a lot of other people in the military, used them as a tool to work 12 hour shifts and still go out and have a life afterwards without racking up massive calories in energy drinks and soda. Was it a healthy decision, probably not. Did it work? Definitely yes.”

Consumers seem to know that there are no magic diet pills and that abusing a product is probably harmful. Thus, rhetoric that casts the FDA — or a manufacturer — as hero or villain does not sway consumers. They would rather know the benefits and risks of a product, and make an informed choice based on that.

• None Found