Search Results

Inflammation + arthritis claims = warning letter < Back Lessons From Inflammation Warning Letters Inflammation + arthritis claims = warning letter Inflammation claims were cited in 17 supplement-related warning letters last year. Here, we’ll look at the lessons we can learn from these letters. Statements like “reduces inflammation” or “anti-inflammatory” are disease claims, but they are not likely to attract a warning letter on their own. 47% of the inflammation claim warning letters (8 of 17) cited in 2023 warning letters include the word arthritis. 53% of these warning letters (9 of 17) include the word “cancer.” Here are some key takeaways. All 17 warning letters include high-risk claims like arthritis, cancer, or Monkeypox, with one exception. This warning letter exception is animal-related and “only” makes inflammation and anti-viral statements. Although risky, this is typically not enough to tip the scale into warning letter category unless it’s an animal product, as FDA has a lower “tolerance” for claims made about animals compared to human products. Although making inflammation claims carries some risk, they are unlikely to be the sole reason for a warning letter. This includes claims made on posts or platforms different from the inflammation claim. This demonstrates how FDA looks at disease claim enforcement. They look at the 10,000-foot view of a company’s online persona and piece together claims from areas like blogs and socials for one big picture of non-compliance. This shows that compliance is not done in a vacuum, and taking a holistic approach to compliance is important. This is one of the approaches we take at my regulatory consulting company, Supplement Advisory Group. Contact me to talk about your consulting needs. 41% of these warning letters involve claims on social media. This is a friendly reminder that even very old social media posts are considered active marketing. 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!

Study citations are marketing < Back GMP Inspection Leads to Online Scrutiny Study citations are marketing This is another example of a GMP inspection leading to a website and social media review. The initial FDA inspection was in April this year, but the website was not reviewed until September and October! This trend is common in warning letters, and FDA does not appear to critique online marketing until months after the initial inspection. This is a reminder for companies inspected in the past year to re-review online marketing to ensure there are no compliance concerns. This includes blog posts that cross the line from education to marketing. Study citations are marketing. There have been several letters where companies highlight research about ingredients like elderberry. This is considered marketing if those ingredients are in products sold on the site, and I talk more about this here . Now is a good time to review your elderberry and other ingredient marketing to ensure there are no “forgotten” ingredient claims. From warning letter. “The Study showed that Elderberry extract is effective in treatment of flu.” Testimonials are becoming more common in warning letters. This company copied a customer testimonial onto a social media image, which is considered “endorsing the testimonial.” From warning letter. “Facebook image post: Joint Support Capsules … Amazing. Really works. Muscle pain and nerve pain.” Several blog claims are cited in this warning letter. A common blog writer trap is to use sensational titles such as “Can Turmeric Help Reduce the Risk of Strokes”? As discussed above, this is a marketing claim if turmeric is sold on the site. Here are some best practices for reducing blog risk. There are several GMP violations cited in this warning letter. They probably wouldn’t have elevated to a warning letter if adequately addressed and if there were no online disease claims present. Companies continue to be cited for not demonstrating the identity of the finished herbal product blend, even if the individual ingredients have been tested and the blending has been validated. To show the finished product identity, a specific method needs to be developed. Does a small company need to spend valuable resources to develop a specific method just to confirm the identity of an herbal blend? I find this rigid interpretation of the regulations puzzling and a potential burden on industry. Setting herbal specifications too rigidly can lead to issues. This company was cited for not properly handling an ingredient that exceeded its lead limit of 1.45ppm, which is not a high level for an herbal ingredient. This would not have been an issue if the company had set a realistic lead level. This demonstrates the importance of setting up a practical Quality Management System (QMS). A QMS developed with GMPs but also operational efficiency in mind is essential to any growing business. Having a properly functioning QMS is critical, but an overburdensome approach to quality is restrictive. Some companies hire exquisite pharmaceutical managers to develop their QMS, and they get what they pay for, a rock-solid system that is pharma-level, but is this needed in a small to midsize company? Some citations went to quality concerns from 2016, showing that even several-year-old decisions regarding quality can come back to bite a company. The FDA did not feel the company’s 483 responses were sufficient. I write about how improper 483 responses can turn into a warning letter here . 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!

Claims made on social are top of FDA’s mind < Back Twitter Claims Enforcement Increasing Claims made on social are top of FDA’s mind Claims cited on Twitter are increasingly appearing in warning letters. #WarningLetterWednesday This year there have been eight letters mentioning disease claims made on Twitter, up from just 12 Twitter-related letters in all of 2021. This is a strong enforcement trend to watch. Several recent warning letters mentioned tweets over 3+ years old, including this one that mentions a retweet from 2014! Wow, this is old! From the warning letter: You retweeted another user’s September 26, 2014 tweet, which said, “#lipoicacid [an ingredient in your R-Lipoic Acid Vegcaps 300 mg and R-Lipoic Acid Vegcaps 100 mg] model treats autonomic neuropathy…...is the best! I’ve tried it.” This is an important reminder to remove old social media posts that may contain disease claims. Here is a video about this . Many of these letters also include claims made in hashtags, which is a great way to attract FDA scrutiny. View my hashtags are claims video 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!

Test “sketchy” products for adulterants < Back Company Selling Adulterated Product Leads To Additional Product Testing Test “sketchy” products for adulterants This warning letter includes drug-spiked products, disease claims, and CBD. It shines a light on how a small, potentially unscrupulous company can tarnish the supplement industry's reputation. Sign up here to have Warning Letter Wednesday delivered to your inbox. You can also search older posts here by keyword, which is a useful resource for your regulatory, marketing, and executive team. 🔷The order of events in this warning letter is interesting. FDA tested this company's product in April and found the presence of the undisclosed drugs Diclofenac, Dexamethasone, and Methocarbamol before posting the warning letter this week. I am unsure exactly how the process works, but I would prefer FDA act quicker to help remove these types of products from the market. This brings up the Mandatory Product Listing question; if FDA has all of that information, what will they do with it? 🔹In the past, I've seen FDA purchase and test products in the sketchy weight loss and male enhancement categories who were also making disease claims, but FDA testing joint health products is less common. One exception is a warning letter from last October which I write about here . What probably tipped off FDA is this company also sells a product that was part of an FDA consumer warning due to it containing Diclofenac, which is an NSAID. This likely led to FDA looking at the website, seeing the disease claims, and testing the other products. 🔹See the FDA consumer warning about this product. 🔷To top off several other issues, one of the products cited in this letter contains CBD. This is the first CBD-related warning letter this quarter which is surprising. As a data point during Q2 last year, there were 11 CBD-related warning letters. We are all aware that the CBD market has contracted, but some companies are still making over-the-top disease claims, especially in the Delta 8 market. 🔷There are several disease claims cited in this letter. In addition to these claims, I am sure the Bob Marley estate would take issue with potential trademark infringement. 👉From warning letter. "On the product labeling for "Bob Marley CannaKing" "REDUCES ANXIETY" "FIGHTS CANCER" "PARKINSON" "GLAUCOMA"" = Read the full warning letter , including the dangers of these undisclosed drugs. 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!

Free products should also be disclosed < Back Influencers Must Disclose Material Connection Free products should also be disclosed Disclosing material connections is an important part of influencer and ambassador marketing, including when customers receive free products and post about them. Drunk Elephant, a well-known skincare brand, was recently targeted by the National Advertising Division (NAD) for alleged violations of their influencers and ambassadors not disclosing material connection. Here’s what we can learn. 👉 From NAD case: "A company influencer states “@Drunk Elephant you did it again – you guys know I’m obsessed with the bronzing drops… hashtag#drunkelephantpartner .” NAD goes on to state “The hashtag is on the fifth line and only visible if the viewer clicks on the hyperlink “more.” 🔹Takeaway: Hiding material connection below the “more” section is not considered conspicuous and is therefore not compliant. Adding disclosures at the beginning of the post is always best. Also since this is a video post where the endorsement is made verbally the disclosure should be made verbally as well. 🔹Unpaid product is compensation: In this example the unpaid consumer who receives free product does not disclose material connection. If they would have said “Thanks for the free product” or “I love this free sample” that would be sufficient disclosure. 👉 From NAD case: “The other TikTok video post was created by … an unpaid influencer who received free product from the company. (The) video post did not feature a material connection disclosure. The text accompanying her post states “b-goldi illuminating drops are 10/10.” NAD noted that receiving free product constitutes a material connection that requires disclosure.” Generally speaking, there are two main types of NAD cases. 1) Challenge cases: This is when a competitor challenges the validity of another company’s claims. There is a cost associated with this and typically only larger companies participate in this. This is important to keep in mind if you are “poking the bear” of a large company. For example, saying a product works better than an incumbent product is a quick way to attract a challenge case. 2) Monitoring cases: NAD looks at different categories of claims and then finds claims to challenge. This Drunk Elephant example is a challenge case and since there is little enforcement of TikTok, I expect more NAD scrutiny of this platform. Read the full case here . DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 11/20/24 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!

Learn from other’s mistakes < Back Warning Letter Marketing Lessons Learn from other’s mistakes We can learn from others' mistakes, and this warning letter outlines what to avoid when marketing herbal supplements. This company was inspected by FDA and received some 483s, but today, I am going to focus on the website disease claims cited in the letter. From warning letter. "It's known to help reduce anxiety …." Asa comments: Suggestive words like "may" and "known to" do not allow us to make disease claims. If accurate, perhaps writing "occasional anxiety" would be lower risk, as this phrase likely represents normal life events and is not related to a disease I write about this here. https://www.asawaldstein.com/warning-letter-wednesday/anxiety-claims-enforcement-review From warning letter. "It's often used as a folk remedy for…the common cold and flu … helping allergies and sinus infections, treating diarrhea …." Asa Comments: Calling something a folk remedy or citing traditional use does not allow us to make strong disease claims like this. From warning letter. "From the list of hyperlinked "Tags" on the product page: "anxiety" "depression" Asa Comments: Product tags and meta tags are considered marketing. From warning letter. "Various studies have shown that it can be effective as a natural remedy for preventing and treating colds and flu …" Asa Comments: Citing studies and discussing clinical research is marketing, and it can also trigger plaintiff lawsuits, who love bringing action against companies making "clinically proven" claims. This is especially true for on-pack (on-the-label) statements. From warning letter. "The lions mane mushroom contains a variety of compounds… [that] have anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer…properties." Asa Comments: Discussing ingredient benefits on a website is a marketing claim, even if there is no hyperlinking to a shopping cart. This is a very common mistake that continues to be cited in warning letters. Okay, so I ran Apex Compliance™ on their website and was hoping that all disease claims were cleaned up. Unfortunately, I was WAY WRONG, as the site is still riddled with high-risk words like "cancer." Learn more about this award-winning compliance software, Apex Compliance ™. Can we envision a day when FDA requires companies who receive warning letters to go through some type of training? Is this a good idea or a terrible one? I suggest everyone read the full warning letter as a way to demonstrate what not to do. 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!

NAD challenge cases explored < Back Fruit Snack Wars NAD challenge cases explored The fruit snack wars are on! A few months ago, I wrote about General Mills challenging television commercials by Welch's Fruit Snacks (PIM's). In the commercials, chef Gordon Ramsay throws away "Fruit Flavored Snacks" by tossing them out of a window. That post includes information on "ash canning," an advertising term that describes the practice of portraying competing products as so inferior that they might as well be discarded like ashes. Read that post here . In this case, Welch's Fruit Snacks (PIM's), who was previously on the defense, challenged several claims made by the Mott's brand of General Mills. This shows that bringing NAD cases can have the added ramification of reciprocal action. 👉From NAD. Although these seem minor, they will likely lead to plaintiff lawsuits and demand letters, which are the biggest"impacts" of NAD decisions. "NAD found that General Mills failed to support these implied claims through challenged social media posts and by reviews reposted by General Mills, including: 🔹"These are great. Way [sic] to get my kids to eat fruits and vegetables. They have [had] a package each night after dinner for years and years." 🔹"My kids love eating these and I love the fact that it's made with real fruits and vegetables and no artificial colors. It helps with trying to show them how to eat mindfully and healthy." You may be asking yourself what the big deal is with fruit snacks. I looked this up. Apparently, this is a $4 billion industry in the US. Also, as a complete aside, every time I hear the name Mott's, I think about this 1987 commercial . Read the NAD case here . DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 12/4/24 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 Presentation, Online Tuesday Sep 20, 2022 Naturally Informed: Stress & Mental Wellness: Mastering the Market Naturally Informed powdered by Wholefoods Magazine and Trust Transparency Center Regulatory Snapshot: Asa provides a review of enforcement trends, risks, and best practices for manufacturers and marketers in the stress and mental wellness space. Watch Now Previous Next

Emerging enforcement trends include FDA focus on documentation and identity testing, and increased scrutiny of online claims < Back Compliance in the Digital Age: Navigating Enforcement, Marketing Risks, and the Rise of AI | State of the Supplement Industry Asa Waldstein Guest Article Emerging enforcement trends include FDA focus on documentation and identity testing, and increased scrutiny of online claims Although the pace of FDA warning letters to dietary supplement companies appears to have slowed over the past 12 months, several important enforcement themes continue. GMP compliance remains a central focus, particularly regarding incomplete identity and finished product composition testing. The FDA’s long-standing mantra still applies: If it’s not written down, it didn’t happen. Read More Previous Next

Asa and other industry experts interviewed < Back Ten experts reflect on state of U.S. hemp industry Interview Asa and other industry experts interviewed Read More Previous Next

< Back Panel Discussion Thursday Feb 25, 2021 Compliance and the Customer Experience Hemp Tours Live Learn about (AHPA) American Herbal Products Association and its mission. Importance for CBD brands to understand the supplement industry and its relationship to the FDA? High-risk marketing mistakes made by supplement and hemp product marketers. How we can market proucts without making claims. Watch Previous Next

< Back Panel Discussion, Online Tuesday Nov 14, 2023 The claims they are a-changin’ AHPA Botanical Congress In the first update to dietary supplement advertising guidance since 1998, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its Health Products Compliance Guidance in December 2022. Then, in April 2023, FTC sent out a mass notice of penalty offenses to almost 700 companies that market dietary supplements, OTC drugs, homeopathic products, and functional foods, referring to the guidance and warning that the agency could pursue civil penalties for companies that did not substantiate their claims. Moderated by Asa Waldstein (Supplement Advisory Group), this session will feature discussion of the new guidance, the notices, and the impact of both, as well as adequate claim substantiation. Attorney Ricardo Carvajal (Hyman, Phelps & McNamara) will also review current trends in litigation. Learn More & Register Previous Next