Correct FDA 483s to avoid a warning letter < Back Most GMP violations involve setting & documenting specifications Correct FDA 483s to avoid a warning letter #WarningLetterWednesday reviews a cGMP manufacturing warning letter. This is a good teaching case about the basics of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) for dietary supplements as this company made some of the most common mistakes. Regulatory expert Steven Yeager and I discuss “How to Prepare for FDA Inspections” in the following webinar . We’ve both helped oversee several FDA CFR 111 inspections with no warning letters and we have fun sharing our helpful tips and hints. Steven and I also presented a four-hour GMP and marketing compliance workshop here at the American Herbalists Guild. This letter includes the most common violation of not establishing and documenting specifications for the identity, purity, strength, and composition. Another common mistake is not having documentation showing a member of the quality team approved specifications and product labels. This role of quality is at the core of GMPs. Imagine the mix-ups and potential adulteration that could occur if the production team was allowed to apply labels without oversight. We recently saw this happen in a CBD company that inadvertently applied CBD labels to the THC product which resulted in serious adverse events. Another important reminder is the requirement to list the plant parts such as leaves or fruit. Also noted is the requirement to have proper Supplement Fact Panel line thickness and bolding. Although these will not attract a warning letter on their own it is better to have a correct label layout. There are so many more violations listed in this letter and I suggest reading the full warning letter here . It is interesting to look at the timelines in this warning letter. The inspection was in May of 2021 when a 483 was issued but the warning letter was not issued until six months later. This gave the company plenty of time to correct the 483 and avoid a letter. Learn more about the difference between 483’s and warning letters here . The very big surprise is the FDA didn’t appear to review the company’s website before the inspection. Normally, the best thing a company can do to prepare for a GMP inspection is to remove all high-risk online marketing claims as FDA investigators review websites and social media before the inspection. This company is very lucky as they still have LOTS of high-risk website claims. This is a strong risk for a repeat warning letter. Learn more about “Reasons to Avoid “Warning Letters” here . Disclaimer: The educational information provided here is for informational purposes only. Contact an attorney for specific legal advice. Rule #1 in compliance is to ensure marketing is truthful and not misleading. Previous Next Get Warning Letter Wednesday in your Inbox Sign-Up Now!

Blogs can easily cross the line from “education” to “disease claims” < Back Best Practices For Reducing Risk in Blogs Blogs can easily cross the line from “education” to “disease claims” This year, there have been five warning letters that include claims made in blogs, and the line between what is allowable and what is a claim continues to shrink. #WarningLetterWednesday It is easy for a well-intentioned content writer to cross the line from education into the disease claim category, which I wrote this post. I break blogs into two categories. Both are considered marketing and must be compliant, but dividing them into two categories helps clients understand how rigid they want their compliance to be. Ideally, there would be no "educational" or "science" blogs on a commercial website, but few companies follow this path. The life of a consultant is helping companies understand risk while also supporting their real-world, compliant and effective marketing. This is fun! Informational & Product Blogs Informational blogs: These are not intended to sell a product but are used to educate about ingredients and science. Crossing the line from informational into a product blog is very easy, so extreme care should be used. Removing all calls to action, such as linking to a shopping cart, can help lessen the implication that a blog is being used to sell a product. I discussed "educational" blogs and compliance with a top FTC official who said something similar to this. 'Why is a company using blogs on their commercial website if not to sell products.' This is the lens the FTC and FDA look at when reviewing marketing statements. I often use this example when educating about how "informational" blogs can easily cross the line into claims. Here's a post from last year about this. I also suggest removing any high-risk "buzzwords" from the blog, including pictures and clinical study URLs. Here is a post and video about finding and placing these high-risk disease words . Product blogs: These are considered "extensions of a product label" and, therefore, must be ultra compliant. If a company wouldn't write "pain" on the label, this word should not be used in a product blog. The same rules about "buzzwords" apply here. Here is a video about reducing risks when using blogs . Here is a detailed post where I discuss blogs and much more! "Warning Letter Review: What Went Wrong & How to Avoid " Disclaimer: The educational information provided here is for informational purposes only. Contact an attorney for specific legal advice. Rule #1 in compliance is to ensure marketing is truthful and not misleading. Previous Next Get Warning Letter Wednesday in your Inbox Sign-Up Now!

Cognition and memory products are big business, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Advertising Division (NAD), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and plaintiff attorneys are paying attention. < Back Cognitive and memory warning letters and litigation trends: Best practices for reducing risk Asa Waldstein Guest Article Cognition and memory products are big business, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Advertising Division (NAD), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and plaintiff attorneys are paying attention. Cognition and memory products are big business, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Advertising Division (NAD), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and plaintiff attorneys are paying attention. This leads to warning letters, competitor challenges and lawsuits, but it can be confusing to know how to discuss ingredients and products without crossing the compliance line or becoming an easy lawsuit target. In this article, I’ll review enforcement trends and best practices to help keep you out of trouble while continuing to educate your consumers and grow your business. Read More Previous Next

Blogs can be considered marketing < Back When “Educational” Blogs Become “Labeling” Blogs can be considered marketing I love educating about enforcement trends and regulatory marketing compliance, and I've been writing this weekly post for almost three years. I have two small companies in the dietary supplement marketing compliance space. Supplement Advisory Group is my consulting company that focuses on dietary supplement labeling and online marketing compliance support. Apex Compliance ™ is my subscription software product that helps find and replace risky marketing phrases on websites, videos, and content before publishing. I've dedicated my life to understanding enforcement trends as a way to inform compliant marketing. Today's post sums up common compliance oversights I commonly see in both of my companies. There have been no dietary supplement warning letters this week and I am attending a conference in NYC, so today's post will be brief. I'm writing this from beautiful Bryant Park, my NYC "office." I often see companies with compliant labels and product pages but have blogs on their websites filled with disease claims. In this post, we'll help demystify when "educational" blogs become marketing. If a supplement company writes about practices such as meditation or exercise being useful for diseases like anxiety, this is generally low risk. If the company mentions the benefits of ingredients they don't sell, again, this is low risk. Now, if there are blogs that talk about ingredients in products they sell, this crosses the line from education to product marketing, even if there are no hyperlinks or cross-linking. Just mentioning ingredients and then suggesting that they can help with diseases is enough to attract a warning letter. Here is an example of what I call the "common blog writer trap." Let's say a company writes a blog such as "5 Tips For Beating The Winter Blues." Typically, it would discuss winter blues and references disease names such as "depression." The blog would then talk about health-giving activities like meditation, snowboarding, working out, and journaling. The company may even talk about how there are studies suggesting that vitamin D supplementation can help. If the company doesn't sell vitamin D, then this blog is likely to be considered educational. However, if vitamin D is in any of their products, this crosses the line for product marketing. The more explicit the statement is, the more likely it is to be cited in a warning letter. For example, "Recent studies show that vitamin D supplementation can help alleviate many of the symptoms associated with depression." When in doubt, resist the urge to overexplain ingredient benefits, as this can result in a warning letter. Disclaimer: The educational information provided here is for informational purposes only. Contact an attorney for specific legal advice. Rule #1 in compliance is to ensure marketing is truthful and not misleading. Previous Next Get Warning Letter Wednesday in your Inbox Sign-Up Now!

Claims in hashtags, videos, and testimonials should be avoided < Back More Marketing Lessons From COVID Letter Claims in hashtags, videos, and testimonials should be avoided More overt COVID claims are cited in this warning letter. We all know that making COVID claims about supplements is wrong, but let's explore key learning lessons you can apply to your marketing. 🔹This warning letter cites claims made in YouTube videos, and I expect more to come. In this letter, FDA builds the "commercial bridge" from the YouTube page to where customers can order products. It probably wouldn't have been mentioned if this was truly an educational page with no shopping cart links. 👉From warning letter. "where you direct consumers to your websites …. respectively, to purchase your products. 🔹COVID hashtags are cited in this warning letter. Noncompliant hashtags are the quickest way to turn a compliant post into a disease claim. 🔹Testimonials are also mentioned in this letter. I'm always interested to learn what the authorities consider a third-party review and what they consider a marketing claim. In this letter, the reviews were on their own "Testimonials" page and were showcased, which is a clear marketing claim in the eyes of the agency. 🔹Asa rant: Most of the claims cited in the warning letter have been removed, but there are still A LOT of COVID claims on their product's website and socials. This is a small, publicly traded corporation, and I am surprised by its audacity. Is the next step an injunction? I do not know much about the agency's inner workings, but it seems this would have been a good joint FDA/FTC warning letter. FTC has more "teeth" and can require companies to stop making unsupported claims or face civil penalties of up to $46,517 per violation and requirements to refund customers. Also, this warning letter was issued last November but was just posted yesterday, and I find the timeline perplexing. Read the full warning letter here . Disclaimer: The educational information provided here is for informational purposes only. Contact an attorney for specific legal advice. Rule #1 in compliance is to ensure marketing is truthful and not misleading. Previous Next Get Warning Letter Wednesday in your Inbox Sign-Up Now!

< Back GMP Pitfalls: Marketing, Manufacturing, & Labeling #WarningLetterWednesday 👉I got carried away writing this WLW post. Check out my blog for the detailed discussion. We can learn a lot from warning letters. Following FDA enforcement trends is a valuable tool for any savvy marketer, regulatory affairs professional, quality manager, or dietary supplement executive. We can adjust practices before they elevate to warning letters by learning how to read warning letters and act accordingly. This is the most detailed Warning Letter Wednesday I have written. ➡️ Read the full post here . 👉FDA Inspections Trigger Website Reviews The company was inspected by FDA in March 2021 and was issued several 483s. The company's website was recently reviewed in February 2022, which led to a letter. Learn about the difference between a 483 and a warning letter here . Usually the FDA investigator reviews a company's website for disease claims before an inspection. That is likely still happening but this is the third recent warning letter where FDA inspections led to a website review at a later date. These website reviews were then elevated to a warning letter. This is an enforcement trend and a reminder for those who have been inspected to clean up website claims. 👉I write about these letters here . 👉This warning letter is a great teaching case. Here are the learning targets. 🔷FDA Inspections Trigger Website Reviews 🔷Marketing Claims 🔷Distributors Responsibilities 🔷Common GMP errors 🔷*Writing and Following Specifications 🔷*Writing Procedures 🔷*Product Returns 🔷*Product Complaints 🔷Certain Herbs Are Not Allowed 🔷Common Allergen Labeling 🔷Domestic Street Address or Phone Number 🔷Languages Must Contain The Same Information 🔷Serving Size and Suggested Use 🔷Plant Parts Must Be Disclosed 🔷Correct Plant Listing 🔷Supplement Fact Panel: Line Thickness 🔷Percent Daily Values Label Requirement 🔷Expiration Dating 👉👉Join my Warning Letter Wednesday group . Disclaimer: The educational information provided here is for informational purposes only. Contact an attorney for specific legal advice. Rule #1 in compliance is to ensure marketing is truthful and not misleading. Previous Next Get Warning Letter Wednesday in your Inbox Sign-Up Now!