Search Results

Safety related product claims attract scrutiny < Back “Non-Toxic” Claims Require Extensive Substantiation Safety related product claims attract scrutiny Making a “Certified Non-Toxic” claim on a mouthwash triggered a competitor challenge. According to the National Advertising Division (NAD) comments, the substantiation provided by the company was not sufficient to support the claim. 👉From NAD. “In support of the “Certified Non-Toxic” claim, Oral Essentials submitted two cytotoxicity studies (one for its sensitivity mouthwash and one for its whitening mouthwash) and a certification statement from MADE SAFE, a third-party certification program that verifies ingredient safety and non-toxicity. Oral Essentials mouthwashes were certified by MADE SAFE at the time of manufacture.” 👉From NAD. “Strong evidence is needed for non-toxic claims due to potential health and environmental risks as well as the potential for consumers to misuse the product or take away a broader message about the product’s safety that is not supported by the claim.” 👉Apparently, the cytotoxicity studies did not exactly match the and did not address the “real-world” effects. From NAD. “NAD found Oral Essentials’ cytotoxicity studies did not support the challenged claims such studies do not reflect the real-world effects on humans and only address one form of toxicity. Additionally, the study formulations contained one less ingredient and differed from the current product ingredients.” It seems the position is that making a “Certified Non-Toxic” claim on a mouthwash label may give some consumers the idea that they can drink the whole bottle or put it in their eyes with no safety issues. I expect people to have more common sense than this, but I guess it is possible for a consumer to think that “Non-Toxic” means they can go nuts with it. I assume the same rationale would apply to toothpaste or any other product that is sparingly used internally. 🔹Don’t rely on certifications: The company also relied on a “MADE SAFE” certification, but this did not substantiate the claim because it was unclear to NAD which real-world factors were evaluated in the certification process, and the company's certification had expired in October 2024. At Supplement Advisory Group , my regulatory consulting company, I often share the “less-is-more” principle with clients. This means that every aspect of packaging will be scrutinized, and if it’s not necessary for marketing, removing it is a good idea. This is not always a popular opinion, but it is important to measure risk and reward while keeping substantiation in mind. Read more about the case here . DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 1/15/25 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!

Expect arterial health claims to be cited in the future < Back Biomarker Claims Lead to Warning Letter Expect arterial health claims to be cited in the future Blood sugar support claims continue to be cited in warning letters. This letter includes biomarker claims such as “improved blood sugar sensitivity and lower A1C.” Based on recent warning letters, listing these types of statements is now enough to attract a letter. I write more about this here . There are other biomarker claims cited in this letter, such as “increased levels of TT3 and TT4," "reduced mean fasting serum glucose," and "promotes arterial elasticity." Keep an eye on your marketing statements relating to arterial plaque and elasticity, as I predict we will see these cited in 2023. This is a warning to companies making similar biomarker claims, and now is the time to review marketing and find and replace these statements. In the past, biomarker claims were not typically enough for a warning letter, but the “Big 7” cardiovascular letters from November signal a change in FDA’s thinking. There are other commonly cited higher-risk claims, such as “diabetes” and “depression,” in this letter. The more of these words used in marketing, the higher the likelihood of receiving a warning letter. You may be saying, “these companies should know better,” and in many ways, I agree. However, they may not have understood that mentioning ingredients in blogs or citing ingredient research is considered marketing. These mistakes are all too common and are a sign of companies who don’t understand the nuanced rules of dietary supplement marketing. Educating on these topics is one of the reasons I write Warning Letter Wednesday. Blogs are mentioned in this warning letter. We are seeing blog titles like this mentioned in recent letters. They help bring traffic to the website but are also clear indications of intended marketing use. In this example, turmeric is in a product sold on the website, which is an implied claim. From warning letter. “Pain Support - Can Turmeric Relieve Arthritis, Joint Pain & Inflammation?” To round this letter out, there are statements such as “Reduce Chance of Catching A Cold.” Talking about reducing the duration of a cold, flu, or respiratory infection is off-limits and should be avoided. Read the full 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!

Companies that compensate influencers or affiliates may be responsible for claims they make < Back MLM Company Cited For Claims Made By Their Affiliates Companies that compensate influencers or affiliates may be responsible for claims they make This is the one-year anniversary of #WarningLetterWednesday. I have written this post every week, even when having Covid, on a tropical vacation, or under a massive work deadline. I love writing this post and hope you find as much joy in it as I do. Today’s post is unique. It involves an MLM company that was cited for claims made by company “consultants,” which is very similar to influencers or affiliates that receive compensation for referral sales to a company website. This is the first time I have seen a company cited for claims made by its affiliates, and this is a trend to watch. From warning letter: “Consumers interested in your products are then redirected by your consultants to your websites www.youngliving.com and www.naturesultra.com to purchase your products.” One of the affiliate Instagram pages mentioned in this letter only has 627 followers, a good reminder there is no such thing as being too small to attract FDA scrutiny. Most claims cited in the warning letters are from the “consultants,” with a few exceptions such as this. From warning letter: “On your website, https://naturesultra.com ....Some studies suggest [t]he most common illnesses caused by an improperly functioning ECS are depression, Alzheimer[’]s, IBS, fibromyalgia, and even migraines” The Denver office issued this warning letter, which seems to be more rigid with online claims enforcement than other divisions or the national offices. Key takeaways are companies should remove risky words from company websites and train and monitor affiliates and influencers to ensure no disease claims are present. I look forward to hearing your comments on this very fascinating warning letter! Full 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!

Remove testimonials with claims < Back Digestive & Cholesterol Claims Cited in Warning Letter Remove testimonials with claims Digestive system claims like Crohn's and IBS occasionally show up in warning. Diseases like Crohn's Disease or syndromes like Irritable Bowel Syndrome should be removed, or if accurate, replaced with statements about stomach and digestive health support. 👉From warning letter. "I used to have terrible knife-like sharp pains in my stomach from the Crohn's and IBS, and a great deal of discomfort from the acid reflux. Dr. Miller's Holy Tea has cleared all of this up…." I'm writing this from a Soulshine retreat in Bali, so today's Warning Letter Wednesday will be brief. Testimonials are also cited in this warning letter. I expect many product reviews and testimonials to be called out in warning letters this year. I talk about engaging with testimonials here. Blood pressure and cholesterol claims enforcement are not slowing down, and I expect this trend to continue. Here is a post about this. 👉From warning letter "Regular use of Youthin Fat Burners may help control High Blood Pressure and Cholesterol" Read the full post 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!

Cosmetics are not "FDA-approved" < Back Marketing Claims Turn Cosmetics Into Drugs Cosmetics are not "FDA-approved" This warning letter shows us where the line is between allowable cosmetic claims, the "not really okay structure-function claims, and disease claims. In this letter, the disease claims tipped the scale to regulatory action. Cosmetics have a narrow definition of what types of marketing claims are allowed. First, let's start with FDA's cosmetic definition. "Articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance." This is very narrow and leaves little room for bold marketing statements. Structure-function claims. Although not permitted for cosmetics FDA tends not to cite cosmetic companies for making lighter "supplement" structure-function claims such as "joint comfort" or "promotes skin elasticity." In this example, the company was making supplement-style claims about an ingredient in the formula. These types of statements, while not ultra-high risk, should still be avoided. From warning letter. "Magnesium Chloride helps with the normal functioning of cells, nerves, bones, and the heart." Disease claims. Here are some examples that cross the compliance line. From warning letter. "5 Benefits of Natural Progesterone Cream: Treats Fibroid Tumors . . . Helps Endometriosis" "Lower the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs)" "May help relieve skin flares caused by Psoriasis & Eczema" GMP violations . This warning letter also includes GMP violations, such as the very common "you didn't test your glycerin for DEG" citation. I write more about this here . Cosmetics and supplements are not FDA-approved. I typically don't take pleasure in other company's misfortunes, but I rather enjoy seeing "FDA-approved" statements called out in warning letters. This serves as a reminder that cosmetics and supplements are not "FDA approved," which differs from "FDA registered." Interestingly, the website's "FDA approved" statement and the ambiguous website "FDA inspected and certified facility" claim were cited. I doubt the label claims would have been called out in this letter without the blatant "FDA-approved" website claims. I will add this to my Apex Compliance keyword lists, which helps companies find and replace risky statements before they lead to lawsuits or letters. ·From warning letter. "the website for Magnesium 50 mg Body Cream includes the image of a blue circle with the claim, "FDA * APPROVED * FACILITY." Further, the product labels and/or websites for the other seven before-listed products include statements that these products are made or manufactured in an "FDA inspected and Certified Facility," a "Certified FDA registered facility," I ran Apex Compliance on this company's website and found lots more very high-risk claims that can lead to additional warning letters or lawsuits. For example, "may help with depression" when promoting vitamin D ingredients. For just $500, I can provide a line-by-line report showing where risky phrases occur, a risk rating, notes, and more. Let me know if interested. There is a lot more to this letter. Read the full warning letter here . DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 8/28/24 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!

Study design must be correct < Back Clinically Proven Claims Lead To Scrutiny Study design must be correct This NAD case shows that making “clinically proven” claims attracts the highest level of scrutiny. The National Advertising Division (NAD) has been paying close attention to skincare marketing claims, and this monitoring case shows that this trend is continuing. A celebrity-supported skincare brand was making the following statement. “Clinically-proven to quickly and visibly lift, firm, and diminish the appearance of fine lines for a revitalized eye area.” Reading NAD’s comments on the clinical study design is interesting. The clinical study “included instrumental measurements of skin hydration and elasticity, digital photographs, and participant questionnaires,” but NAD determined the subjective portion of the study questionnaire could not support all of the ‘clinically proven to quickly and visibly lift’ statements but “NAD found that other portions of the claim were supported, therefore recommended the claim be modified to reflect that the “quick” and “visible” results pertain only to hydration and “the appearance of fine lines.” This shows how even small marketing statements may be picked apart and should be adequately substantiated. There are also some other items in this case which are worth reading. Full disclosure: I am a big Reese fan, but the folks in charge of her brand ambassador compliance can learn from this. From NAD. “The National Advertising Division (NAD) also recommended that actress Reese Witherspoon’s status as a … brand ambassador be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. NAD’s inquiry further focused on whether the format of the challenged advertising gives the impression of editorial content from InStyle and Hello! Magazines and Sephora when, in fact, they are advertisements.” The company also discontinued the “#1 best selling product at Sephora” claim. NAD cases continue to reference claims like “#1 best selling” and “#1 doctor recommended,” which should be avoided unless the company has solid substantiation. These types of claims should not be confused with puffery statements such as “world’s best cup of coffee,” which are permitted. I write more about puffery here . Read the NAD case 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!

Do's and don'ts of puffery < Back Puffery Claims Explored Do's and don'ts of puffery Puffery is one of my favorite advertising compliance discussions. Last week, I attended the ACI Substantiation Conference in NYC, where puffery was widely discussed. A recent National Advertising Division (NAD) case determined that a beef jerky company’s “the best” and “Clearly the best” statements were puffery. OK, I know I write about supplements, but we can learn from the beef jerky NAD case. Also, I go into more detail about what constitutes puffery below. According to NAD, puffery is “an exaggerated, blustering, or boastful statement or general claim that could only be understood to be an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact.” From NAD case. “Old Trapper’s “Clearly the Best Beef Jerky” slogan, when used on its product packaging and website, conveys a message of corporate pride, and the use of “best” is not comparative as no specific competitor or ingredient is identified. In these contexts, the challenged claims are unquantifiable and, therefore, puffery.” “The claim “The Best Ingredients Create the Best Beef Jerky” which appears prominently on the Old Trapper website landing page, did not convey a specific comparative superiority message.” “Old Trapper’s 15-second YouTube video that depicted a single bag of Old Trapper jerky while “Old Trapper is Clearly the Best Beef Jerky. Clearly More. Clearly Nothing to Hide. Clearly Fresh. Clearly the Best”, did not convey a comparative superiority message because the video only featured Old Trapper, did not tout attributes other than a single reference to “clearly fresh,” and did not refer to or depict any competitors or competitors’ products.” NAD did however find that the company’s “We use only the highest quality ingredients” is an objective claim that requires support. If they had stayed with the “Only the best ingredients make the best products” claim, this would have likely been considered puffery. NAD looks at whether a claim is provable, measurable, or is an opinion. Here are three parameters of puffery (with examples). Thanks for this, NAD! 1) Puffery as exaggeration: We all remember the movie Elf, where Will Ferrell declares the crummy coffee was, in fact, the “World’s best of coffee.” This statement is so exaggerated that no reasonable consumer would believe this to be accurate. If a company advertised “Best cup of coffee in Boulder,” then perhaps it would no longer be puffery. Adding quantifiable comments such as “#1 coffee choice in Boulder” would require substantiation. 2) Puffery as an opinion: “The best almonds make the best almond milk.” was considered to be proof of corporate pride in its product and was not a comparative claim. This would require substantiation if it could be quantified, such as “We only use the best California almonds.” 3) Puffery from depictions and imagery: This example shows how context matters and that even if a claim is puffery, the corresponding imagery can make it a claim requiring substantiation. a. A statement that may have been puffery in isolation but was presented in the context of other claims that made it NOT puffery. Many of us may remember the “Hefty, hefty, hefty. Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.” advertisements. NAD found that in a radio advertisement, this line was puffery, but when used in a television commercial featuring John Cena, who is very large, and Rob Schneider (much smaller), the visual commercial made Glad Bags seem wimpy. NAD has a podcast about puffery. Learn more here . Read the beef jerky NAD case 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!

Discussing ingredient benefits is "marketing" < Back Discussing Ingredient Science Discussing ingredient benefits is "marketing" Helping you understand the fine line between education and product marketing is one of the reasons I love writing Warning Letter Wednesday. We continue to see well intentioned companies perhaps unknowingly cross the line from “education” to “disease claims.” Here I explore how discussing science easily become disease claim marketing. From warning letter. These lessons teach us what not to do. “In another recent study, correlations between CBD and blood pressure were examined. Two groups were evaluated, one being test subjects who were given CBD and the other being a control group with a placebo. All subjects were exposed to stressors that would induce a higher blood pressure. The study concluded that a dose of CBD was helpful to reducing blood pressure.” "CBD has been studied for its possible uses for children, and while the science is still preliminary, there are some promising opportunities. One of the best is the use of CBD for children with autism. One study of 188 children with autism, ages 5 to 18, found that some symptoms, such as seizures, restlessness and rage attacks, were lessened.” How can you use science in marketing? Here’s what the FDA’s Small Entity Compliance Guide on Structure-Function Claims says. This basically means that some citations are permitted but ensuring the context does not imply your product treats or help diseases is essential to compliance. As with many things we “know it when we see it.” Examples of cross the compliance boundaries include social media posts which mention the ingredient and the disease name, social posts with where the meta description mentions the ingredient and disease, company or ingredient hashtags on carefully worded scientific literature posts. Also, science that is showcased on product or ingredient pages often may be considered non-compliant. From FDA (Question and Answer). “Can I use citations of publications that relate to my product's intended use in labeling if the publication title or the journal name mentions a disease name? Yes, but some limitations apply. If the citation implies treatment or prevention of a disease, it is a disease claim. Thus, if in the context of the labeling as a whole its presence implies treatment or prevention of disease (for example, by placement on the immediate product label or packaging, inappropriate prominence, or lack of relationship to the product's express claims), the citation is a disease claim. If the citation is used in labeling, its context determines if it is a disease claim. A citation that is used in the bibliography section of labeling, is included in a balanced discussion of the scientific literature, is not excessively prominent relative to other citations, and provides legitimate support for a structure/function claim made for the product would not be a disease claim.” DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 10/30/24 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!

Test products like glycerin for adulterants < Back 11 Companies Cited For Not Testing For Contaminants Test products like glycerin for adulterants 11 companies were cited for failing to provide FDA information on contaminant testing for glycerin, propylene glycol, and other ingredients. These ingredients are most commonly adulterated with diethylene glycol (DEG) or ethylene glycol (EG). Warning Letter Wednesday is a weekly regulatory post where I review interesting warning letters as a way to inform our compliant manufacturing and marketing. Sign up to have this delivered to your inbox each week. 🔷These warning letters are directed at companies that make OTC and other drugs, but supplement companies can learn from these letters. Ensuring ingredients like glycerin and ethanol are tested for these possible impurities is essential. It seems FDA requires drug companies to test each batch for these contaminants. However, testing each batch of incoming supplement ingredients like glycerin is probably unnecessary if a company has verified the supplier and has SOPs and documentation to support reduced adulterant testing. In the past, I only tested my glycerin annually for DEG, but I had years of data to support this reduced testing. At the very least, testing annually or when changing vendors is a good idea. 👉 Other known contaminants are melamine in milk and methanol in ethanol. What other known contaminants does your company test for? 🔷Five of these companies never responded to FDA’s request for information. Not responding to FDA records requests is a prohibited act, which is serious. 🔷Nine of the companies who received warning letters are from other countries like India, South Korea, and Canada. Products from these companies have been placed on Import Alerts, meaning products may be detained, and entry into the US may be refused. Here is FDA’s “Testing of Glycerin, Propylene Glycol, Maltitol Solution, Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysate, Sorbitol Solution, and Other High-Risk Drug Components for Diethylene Glycol and Ethylene Glycol” document . 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!

Packaging procedures prevent labeling issues < Back Major Allergen Labeling Issues Lead To Warning Letter Packaging procedures prevent labeling issues There are three lessons in this Warning Letter Wednesday post. Labeling major allergens, avoiding label mix-ups, and hazard analyses are required for conventional food. The specific type of allergen is needed for tree nuts, crustacean shellfish, and fish. This is still a common error that I see when reviewing dietary supplement labels. The specific species of fish (e.g., bass, flounder, tilapia, salmon or cod) The specific species of Crustacean shellfish (e.g., crab, lobster, or shrimp) The specific type of tree nut (e.g., almond, pecans, or walnuts) I review 10+ dietary supplement labels each month at my consulting company, Supplement Advisory Group . Contact me to learn more about this and my website/content compliance review services. I love this stuff. Proper labeling and packaging control can prevent dangerous and expensive mix-ups. This company put the wrong labels on which resulted in recalls and the warning letter. Proper packaging process control and documentation are critical in manufacturing, and up-front organization can prevent expensive issues. I use consultants like Nate Call & Blake Ebersole for Quality Management System development and implementation. If you want an introduction, please let me know. Conventional food companies must comply with all subparts of 21 CFR 117 , which include a risk-based hazard analysis. There are so many warning letters about this essential aspect of food safety. As a side point, dietary supplements need to only comply with some of the 21 CFR 117 subparts. Here is a good FDA resource that includes directions on listing major allergens and common seafood names. If you know of a better allergen resource, please do share. 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!

Review old videos for compliance < Back Seven YouTube Warning Letters This Year Review old videos for compliance There have been seven YouTube-related FDA warning letters this year, and I expect the trend to continue. This demonstrates that videos are marketing claims and are, therefore, fair game for enforcement. In YouTube warning letters, there is always a statement such as “This links to a website where you take orders for the products.” This is the link to commerce and establishes the “commercial bridge.” If there was no link to a shopping cart in the videos or elsewhere in the YouTube channel, I wonder if they would be cited in the warning letters. One of the features of Apex Compliance ™ is scanning YouTube videos for compliance concerns. What used to take several minutes or longer can now be done in seconds. I love this feature! Warning letters this year also include YouTube videos embedded on websites, not just videos hosted on a YouTube channel. This shows that claims made in any format, including those in embedded videos, are being scrutinized. Now is a good time to review your videos, especially the old and potentially forgotten ones, for compliance before they turn into warning letters or lawsuits. 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!

Do not engage with customer “disease” testimonials < Back Saying “Thanks” on a Social Post Leads to Warning Letter Do not engage with customer “disease” testimonials If a company engages with a post on its social media wall, this is considered “endorsing the testimonial” and is marketing. It has been quite a while since we have seen a company cited for this, and honestly, I thought FDA had stopped enforcing this until the recent warning letter . Sign up for weekly Warning Letter Wednesday posts here . There are a few interesting aspects to this warning letter. Even saying “thanks for commenting” or “liking” a post is an “endorsement.” Based on this, I guess that smiley face emojis should also be avoided when posts have a disease or disease-treatment claims. The lesson here is that any engagement turns a customer comment into a marketing claim. Companies should review old social posts to ensure there is no engagement on customer comments with disease-type claims. FDA may look back several years on a company’s social media page. Claims made on Amazon and Walmart are cited in this letter. Companies commonly focus on website compliance but often overlook “old” marketing statements on these platforms. FDA is paying close attention to these platforms. This was part of the “Big 7” cardiovascular-related warning letters from a few weeks ago, which show that even talking about diagnostics related to heart disease, such as “lowers LDLs” can lead to a warning letter. I write about this in detail here . From warning letter. “You also endorsed the following responses to your post by liking them: “I just got my blood test back my total cholesterol went down 56 points and my bad cholesterol went down 82 points.” FDA cited claims made on a company testimonials page. The authorities have been “hands off” with non-curated, non-compensated, third-party product reviews. These cross the line into marketing if they are showcased on banners or, in this case, on a specific testimonials page. 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!