Happy New Year!  And now on to your regular Consumer Product Matters programming…

Another Federal agency with a consumer-protection mandate has taken a significant step to reset compliance expectations and enforcement priorities for over-the-counter homeopathic drug products. Although we will not re-cap the recent history of the industry here so we can keep this post a reasonable length, in late 2016 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its long-awaited policy for the advertising and marketing of OTC homeopathic drugs (see prior post here). The FTC’s action followed two public workshops convened in 2015 to deliberate a multitude of thorny legal and regulatory issues associated with consumer-directed homeopathy – one hosted by the FTC and the other hosted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Written comments were also collected after both public meetings.

On December 18, 2017, FDA finally released a revised enforcement policy (in draft form) following this robust and comprehensive re-examination of the regulatory framework for homeopathic products. The enforcement policy applies only to human drugs labeled as homeopathic and sold without FDA premarket approval. Continue Reading FDA Resets Enforcement Priorities for OTC Homeopathic Drugs

As we predicted earlier this year, Congress is making moves toward enacting cosmetics reform legislation in the near future. In late October 2017, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S. 2003, the “FDA Cosmetic Safety and Modernization Act,” which we will refer to as the “Hatch bill” for purposes of this post.

The proposed legislation would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by introducing measures to regulate ingredients, monitor adverse reactions to cosmetics, and establish good manufacturing practices. Under the Hatch bill, FDA would receive authority to accredit third-party organizations in order to determine chemical safety. The Hatch bill also would preempt any state action on cosmetic chemical ingredients once FDA identifies a chemical for review. We summarize key sections of the Hatch bill below. Continue Reading A “Surprise” Cosmetic Reform Bill Appears in Congress; Bipartisan Compromise Continues to Be Legislators’ Goal

As we previously blogged about in mid-2016, Food and Drug Administration officials have been exploring and pushing for the creation of a new user fee program to support its regulatory activities related to over-the-counter (OTC, also known as nonprescription) drug products. In June of 2016, the Agency held a public meeting to solicit stakeholder feedback on its ideas. Since that time the proposal to develop an OTC Monograph User Fee Program has matured and it is generating considerable steam. However, FDA cannot implement such a program to assess user fees against members of private industry unless and until it has statutory authorization from Congress to do so.

As the Agency explains it, “A user fee program for nonprescription monograph drugs would be a potential funding mechanism to supplement congressional non user-fee appropriations, and would support timely and efficient FDA review of the efficacy and safety of ingredients included in or proposed for inclusion in a monograph.” General partisan gridlock in D.C. notwithstanding, it appears likely that Congress may enact the legislation necessary to create this new User Fee Program during its current session (2017-18). This post updates legislative and FDA activities in this area since our introductory discussion in 2016. Continue Reading OTC Drug Manufacturers: Keep Your Eyes and Ears on Congress

As we reported on previously (see here and here), FDA recently tussled with the manufacturer of an innovative vegan condiment called “Just Mayo” based on the existence of a Federal standard of identity for mayonnaise that requires the food product to incorporate eggs.

Similar disputes related to identity standards that don’t accommodate plant-based versions of foods, or that just don’t allow for new or innovative uses of traditional ingredients, seem to have increased in frequency and visibility over the past year. As a result, we expect that FDA is feeling pressure from diverse stakeholder groups to revisit some of its regulations and policies related to enforcing food standards of identity (SOI). This post highlights some of these emerging disputes and the trend of interested parties raising more challenges to long-standing (but potentially obsolete) food identity standards. Continue Reading Food Identity Disputes Continue to Impose High-Profile Pressure on FDA

On July 24, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it had responded to a November 2015 petition from Royal Hawaiian Macadamia Nut, Inc. for a new qualified health claim characterizing the relationship between macadamia nut consumption and a reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Continue Reading Reading the Tea Leaves: Sales of Macadamia Nuts Could Be Going Up!

It has recently been reported that President Donald Trump is looking for ways to defend American-made products by certifying legitimate U.S. goods and aggressively going after imported products unfairly sporting the “Made in America” label, the White House said on July 18, 2017. President Trump announced that his administration would crack down on “predatory online sales of foreign goods” that are hurting U.S. retailers. According to a senior official, the United States loses about $300 billion a year to theft of intellectual property ranging from semiconductors to jeans. In March of this year, the President signed an executive order that gave customs officials more authority to stop pirated and counterfeit items.

This space has addressed the issues, both regulatory and litigation, relating to “Made in America” claims (see herehere, and here). Based on the Administration’s comments,  the White House plans to work with the private sector on the new certification and verification system rather than create new regulations or spend taxpayer money. Continue Reading The Turn of the “Made in America” Claim Enforcement

As we’ve previously reported, FDA has signaled its interest in reviewing the scope and meaning of the nutrient content claim “healthy,” in part as result of a dispute with KIND LLC about label claims for its KIND Bar products. Then last fall FDA released a new guidance document on what constitutes a “healthy” food and proper labeling of such foods, and the Agency simultaneously requested public input on a significant number of questions related to use of this particular claim.

Last week, FDA announced two actions that are intended to further advance this public consultation process for “healthy” label claims. First, it has extended the comment period that was initiated in October with the release of the draft guidance document until April 26, 2017. And it is convening a public meeting to discuss the use of the term “healthy” in the labeling of human food products, in part to further the feedback that may be received during this ongoing comment period. Continue Reading Reexamination of “Healthy” Continues with an FDA Public Meeting in March 2017

As we have discussed in previous posts, Congress may be moving towards finally enacting some long-awaited cosmetics reform legislation this year. On January 13, Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) reintroduced his cosmetics modernization bill as H.R.575. The package of reforms was first introduced in November 2015 as the Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of 2015 (H.R.4075).

Overall, the proposed legislation would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to FDA’s regulation of cosmetics by creating new requirements such as the registration of manufacturing establishments and the submission of a cosmetic and ingredient statement for each marketed cosmetic. It also would require cosmetic manufacturers, packers, and distributors to report to FDA any serious and unexpected adverse events caused by a cosmetic product. Likewise, cosmetic labels would be required to include contact information for consumers to report such events to the manufacturer or distributor.

Below, we break down in detail pertinent sections of the Sessions bill, as it was introduced in the previous Congress (although reports indicate that the reintroduced version has not been altered significantly). Continue Reading Cosmetics Reform Activity Begins in the 115th Congress

Some of our colleagues from Mintz Levin’s Class Action Practice, Joshua Briones, Crystal Lopez, and Grace Rosales, recently authored an interesting and timely article in the Bloomberg BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter. The article examines certain defenses in consumer fraud class actions over product labeling – specifically, defenses based on faulty damages models. Beyond proving the factual truth of the allegedly misleading labeling claims, the authors tell us, food and other consumer product companies can combat meritless suits by showing that the plaintiff’s damages-calculation model does not meet the requirements established under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

When reviewing a purported class action lawsuit, Federal Rule 23(b) requires the court to determine that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Generally, a consumer’s damages in a false advertising case are equal to the amount of money needed to make the consumer “whole” — that is, to compensate the consumer for the harm caused by the false claim. But measuring the actual value received by a consumer and the but-for value that consumer would have received absent the false labeling by the product’s manufacturer requires a fact-intensive economic inquiry (for example, questions related to individual consumers’ behavior and preferences, the actual amount consumers paid for the product, time frame of the purchase, etc.). As a result, according to our expert litigators, defendants in product labeling lawsuits can oppose class certification or even file an early motion to decertify by showing that the plaintiffs’ damage model cannot be calculated with proof that is “common” to the class.

Joshua, Crystal, and Grace’s full article can be viewed here. Any manufacturer or retailer of consumer products that is facing a false labeling suit should give it a quick read!

As we’ve previously written about, 2016 represented a regulatory sea change for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), who became subject to FDA oversight and requirements under the May 2016 Deeming Rule for tobacco products. In Monday’s Federal Register, FDA issued a final rule to exclude products derived from tobacco from Federal regulation as “tobacco products,” if or when such products are intended for use as a drug, device, or combination product (the “Final Rule”). In other words, the Agency has formally clarified that even a product made or derived from tobacco may be regulated as a medical product if it is intended for use in a way that meets the legal definition of “drug” or “device.”

However, FDA’s attempt to apply further requirements and restrictions on tobacco-derived products comes amid intense government wrangling over how to regulate products like ENDS more generally. It also comes at the eleventh hour of the Obama Administration and in the face of a Republican-controlled Congress that has expressed an interest in repealing, or at least reviewing, a large proportion of Federal agency rulemakings completed in the past several months. So it is worth noting that although this Final Rule could have a profound effect on marketing schemes for tobacco products, drugs, and medical devices alike, Congress’s recent passage of the Midnight Rules Relief Act could eliminate the rule before it ever takes effect (set for February 8, 2017). Continue Reading FDA Finalizes Tobacco Product Intended Use Rules, Under a Risk of Rescission by Congress