Search Results

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!

Arthritis claims attract scrutiny < Back Tips For Understanding What A Claim Is Arthritis claims attract scrutiny Arthritis claims continue to be cited in warning letters. As many of you know, I love teaching about regulatory compliance to help you adjust your marketing and stay ahead of the regulatory curve. We hear about not “making claims,” but it can be challenging to know what a claim is. Here are a few general rules for avoiding high-risk claims that can lead to a warning letter. What other tips can you share? Anything ending in “itis,” such as “arthritis”. “Itis” means “inflammation of,” which helps me remember it should be avoided. Fun fact, “arthritis” is the most commonly referenced of all the words ending in “itis.” Other than “antioxidant” and perhaps “anti-aging,” words with “anti” should be avoided. Immune-related words like “antiviral” or “antitumor” are higher risk than “anti-inflammatory.” Words with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. The name of any illness or syndrome, such as Alzheimer’s or IBS. Some are obvious, but some of the syndromes, like Leaky Gut Syndrome, may not be as obvious. Here is a post about this. Searching past FDA warning letters can help you learn what they’ve previously cited. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-actions-and-activities/warning-letters “Better than drugs” statements attract FDA attention. Here’s a WLW post about this. FDA sent out 12 arthritis-related warning letters last year, so please avoid making these types of claims. This includes: Hashtags Showcased testimonials Citing clinical studies Product tags and meta tags Social share meta description FDA has been quiet with supplement warning letters, and I am in New Zealand, so this is a shorter post than normal. I am writing this WLW for the beautiful Coromandel. Yes, I love compliance and writing this post (smiles)! 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!

Following SOPs is essential to compliance < Back GMP Issues Following SOPs is essential to compliance There are so many important GMP lessons in this warning letter. Let’s see what we can learn. Botanical identification methods: When developing botanical specifications, ensuring they are complete is essential. In the warning letter, the company apparently did not add crucial aspects of specifications. From warning letter. “None of these components have a listed specification target, range, reference, or test method.” Incomplete 483 responses: When responding to 483s, it is important to follow through. Here, FDA cites the company for seemingly not providing the promised information. From FDA: “We have reviewed your response dated November 10, 2023. In your response you state you will create specifications for raw materials and that you estimate it will take approximately 90 days. You did not provide any documentation of your specifications, so we cannot evaluate the implementation.” Internal audits are a good best practice but are generally not required unless an SOP states this. In this warning letter, the company is cited for not following its own SOP. The lesson here is ensuring SOPs are developed with the entire company’s capabilities in mind, as SOP requirements can paint a company into a compliance corner. From warning letter. “You did not conduct periodic Good Manufacturing (GMP) internal audits of the entire plant with documented corrective actions, as required by your SOP... An internal audit has not been conducted since 2022." Master Manufacturing Records (MMRs) are the “recipe and directions” for making products. When I was in manufacturing, I would describe the MMR as this: “If someone has never made this product before, they can pick up the MMR and figure out how to make it perfectly every time.” Here FDA cites the company for not having a theoretical yield. This “lily pad” approach to quality is important to help catch issues before product leaves the building. For example, calculating theoretical yields catches issues such as inadvertently omitted ingredients or low capsule fill weight. From warning letter. “Statement of the percentage of theoretical yield at appropriate phases of processing” Cross-referencing labels to the formula is an essential part of GMPs. From warning letter. “Your MMR did not include a description of packaging and a representative label.” From warning letter. “Your MMR for does not include instructions for capsule drying or packaging operations. In addition, the MMR does not contain detailed instructions for the encapsulation process.” Allergen advisory statements are mentioned in this letter. I have never added this warning ‘because major allergens are either in the product or they are not.’ From warning letter. The … product label declares “Allergy warning: Manufactured in facility that also handles milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat and soybean.” Advisory labeling is not a substitute for adherence to current good manufacturing practices and, when used by a facility, food allergen preventive controls. See Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding Food Allergens Labeling , The firm should make every effort to ensure that they and their suppliers have adequate GMPs in place to prevent the unintentional inclusion of allergens in their products and ingredients. Read the full letter here . DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 11/6/24 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!

Re-review marketing if FDA has inspected you < Back Online Marketing & GMP Lessons Re-review marketing if FDA has inspected you Learning about compliance is fun, and today’s Warning Letter Wednesday has critical teaching opportunities for marketing and GMP compliance. This is yet another example of a company being inspected by FDA; then, many months later, around the time of the inspection close out, FDA looked at the company’s online marketing and found a lot of no-nos. This is an enforcement trend that I write about in more detail here . First, the marketing issues : YouTube videos : Claims made in YouTube videos have been mentioned in three warning letters this year and I expect this trend to continue. Reviewing hours of YouTube videos for compliance concerns is painful, so I developed and patented a technology to help with this . In this warning letter FDA clearly shows the “material connection” or “commercial bridge” by referencing that the company placed its website on the screen. From warning letter. “the URL for your website … appears onscreen during the video and you state: “Very powerful anti-cancer properties…used in conjunction with chemotherapy and other cancer treatments, but not only does it have anti-cancer properties it also has a lot of other properties as well…the way that Taxane works in the body to fight cancer is it causes cell apoptosis in cancer cells.” Biomarker claims continue to be mentioned in warning letters. I go into more detail about this here . From warning letter. “Lowers LDL and Triglyceride Levels” Words with “anti” are disease claims , except for antioxidant and perhaps anti-aging. Words like anti-inflammatory have a risk rating of three out of five (Asa risk scale) which means they are not likely to attract a warning letter on their own, but words like anti-viral are very risky. From warning letter. Dr. Bob’s Parasite Killer is formulated with parasiticidal, anti-fungal, anti-viral, and antibacterial ingredients with the intention of killing everything in the digestive tract. Claims on product labels : We know that all marketing is an extension of the label, but I am still surprised by some of the “on-pack” claims companies put on the product label. No knowledgeable manufacturer would apply labels with these statements. From warning letter. “Dr. Bob’s Parasite Killer is formulated with parasiticidal, anti-fungal, anti-viral, and anti-bacterial ingredients with the intention of killing everything in the digestive tract.” Now the GMP learning opportunities : Component specifications are integral to GMPs, and each raw material must have written specifications. This is to ensure ingredients do not make it into inventory unless they’ve been checked. For example, suppose an ingredient’s visual specification was green and the product came in yellow, or the ingredient did not pass identity testing. In that case, the specification sheet should help catch and document this. From warning letter. “Yuan Zhi is an ingredient in your … but you did not establish such component specifications for Yuan Zhi.” Incomplete 483 responses are too common, and I write more about this here . From warning letter. “you did not provide any supporting documentation, such as copies of your specifications. We are unable to evaluate the adequacy of your corrective action, because you did not provide documentation to support that you have established component and finished product specifications.” Batch Production Records (BPRs) are the “recipe” and should have all adequate information, including copies of labels and cleaning records. Here are some of the items cited in this letter. The description and name of equipment used in producing the batch. This is important so cleaning can be documented. 🔷 The date and time of maintenance, cleaning, and sanitizing of the equipment and processing lines used in producing the batch or a cross-reference to records where this information is retained. 🔷 The unique identifier, such as a lot number and item number for each component, packaging, and label used. 🔷 The identity and weight or measure of each component used [21 CFR 111.260(e)]. A statement of the actual yield or theoretical yield at appropriate phases of processing. This is important to ensure the weight is correct. For example, a high yield could signify an ingredient may have been incorrectly weighed, and this may pose a safety concern. Documentation that the finished dietary supplement meets specifications. Documentation at the time of manufacturing, such as real-time quality checks. This includes bottle weight and label verification. Documentation that quality control personnel reviewed the batch production record and approved and released, or rejected, the batch for distribution. The job of quality is to review and release ingredients, in-process work, and finished products once it has been verified against its specification. Labeling issues were also cited. 🔷 Not listing the capsule in the label’s ingredients 🔷 Not listing the plant part such as ginkgo leaf. 🔷 Not using the standardized common name as described in AHPA’s Herbs of Commerce. Thanks, AHPA, for this resource! 🔷 Incorrect serving size. If the label states, “take 5-8 capsules,” the supplement fact panel must reflect the higher number. 🔷 Listing nutrients with zero amounts, like cholesterol, is not allowed on supplements but is standard for conventional food labels. 🔷 The company was cited for not listing black walnut as a major allergen. I ask, is black walnut a tree nut allergen? 🔷 DSHEA disclaimer: I don’t remember seeing this in a warning letter. The company was cited for apparently not having the DSHEA disclaimer on the label. From Warning Letter. Your … are each misbranded within the meaning of section 403(r)(6) [21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(6)] in that the products make structure-function claims but fail to bear the required dietary supplement disclaimer in accordance with 21 CFR 101.93(b). There are many more labeling items cited. Read the full 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!

Use caution with “clinically proven” or “clinically studied” statements < Back “Clinically proven” statements are high risk Use caution with “clinically proven” or “clinically studied” statements #WarningLetterWednesday Implying "Clinically Proven" or even "Clinically Studied" is high risk. This is a trend to watch out for. We are seeing references to "clinically proven" types of claims showing up not just in warning letters but also in class action lawsuits and NAD complaints. The highest burden of proof is "clinically proven". This is rare in dietary supplements and should be used only if proper substantiation exists. The next highest burden of proof is "clinically studied". This requires the formula to be studied with scientifically significant methods. Bench or pilot tests may not qualify as "clinically studied". This can be difficult when using branded ingredients that may have been researched but perhaps do not meet a "clinically studied" standard. Most branded ingredients have sound research but some may not. It is important to conduct a proper review before using ingredient science on face value. A "clinically studied ingredient" is different than a "clinically studied product". There are many factors including serving size, formulation, and delivery form that play a role in this. We talk about what defines clinically proven here . If accurate, I prefer using descriptions such as "thoughtfully formulated with well-researched ingredients". What are your thoughts? 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!

Increase in claims cited in blogs and social media < Back Anxiety Claims Enforcement Review Increase in claims cited in blogs and social media Anxiety claims enforcement continues to be top of mind for the FDA. In this #WarningLetterWednesday I compare 2022 anxiety claims enforcement with the same time last year. I found some interesting data points that help us understand where the FDA is finding risky items. These learning tools can alert companies where to look for risky keywords that may be lurking on company websites and social media. Here are some key takeaways: 27% of this year’s warning letters mention claims made in hashtags compared with 20% in the same period last year. This shows that hashtags are indeed marketing claims and can tip the scale into the warning letter category if they are non-compliant. Here is my “Hashtags Are Marketing Claims” video . Warning letters citing blogs and anxiety claims more than doubled (63%) over the same period last year (30%). It is now common to see a several-year-old blog mentioned in a warning letter; a good reminder to ensure all blogs, including the old ones, are compliant. Here is my “Best Practices for Reducing Risk in Blogs” post . Social media enforcement continues to be a trend to watch. This is exemplified by the 63% anxiety claims number this year compared to 40% in the same period last year. The two most drastic changes this year were with CBD and animal anxiety claims. 72% of this year’s letters mention CBD, up from just 16% in the same period last year. This shows the FDA’s increasing intolerance of companies marketing CBD with disease claims. There has never been a riskier time to market CBD products; I go into detail about this here . This year, animal and anxiety warning letters increased from 10% to 45%. I write about this enforcement trend here . The one-two punch of both “anxiety” and “depression” is mentioned in about ¾ all of the 2021/22 anxiety warning letters. There have been 22 anxiety-related FDA warning letters this year compared to 30 in the same period last year. I was a little surprised by the low number this year. It is worth noting that “occasional anxiety” was mentioned zero times in these warning letters. The key takeaway is that focusing on life occurrences such as “occasional anxiety” or “occasional inflammation” may be a lower-risk marketing strategy. 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!

Old blogs & posts are “active” marketing < Back 15 CBD & Delta-9 Warning Letters in 2023 Old blogs & posts are “active” marketing Two weeks ago, FDA sent its 15th CBD and delta-8 warning letter of 2023. Although this seems like a high number, it was down from 34 last year. So why the dramatic reduction in enforcement action? One reason is many CBD companies were started by people not familiar with the nuanced rules of marketing ingestible products. These businesses and the inexperienced operators that were making risky marketing claims have moved to other industries, and there are simply no longer thousands of noncompliant CBD companies. 💡 I've been writing this weekly post for ~2.5 years (yes, EVERY week). Sign up for the email newsletter and see old posts here . There still are however, some companies selling CBD, and today’s Warning Letter Wednesday has good learning opportunities for the supplement and cannabinoid industries. 🔷Old blog posts are marketing. The days of 2020 are thankfully behind us, but all of the content produced back then is still active marketing in the eyes of the FDA. This warning letter cited several posts, including this one from November 2020. The lesson here is going back and reviewing old social media and blog posts is an essential part of compliance as these “forgotten” posts continue to be cited in marketing. 👉From warning letter. “A November 12, 2020 blog post titled “CBD, COVID-19, And The Novel Coronavirus” which contains claims such as “On the more promising side of research, a research team based out of Augusta University (GA) found a potential protective role for CBD as part of the treatment of COVID-19” 🔷Social media Here is a post where the company makes high-risk statements on their Facebook and Instagram. 👉From warning letter. “Experimental evidence is limited, and more research is needed, but studies on pain and inflammation, breast cancer, epilepsy, and other conditions have found a greater therapeutic effectiveness of whole-plant or full-spectrum cannabis products than isolated cannabinoids.” Read the full 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 marketing CBD products should avoid making disease claims < Back 300%+ Increase in CBD Warning Letters This Year Companies marketing CBD products should avoid making disease claims This year there have been 26 CBD-related warning letters. This is up from just seven in all of 2021. That is over a 300% increase, and we are only in August! This shows the FDA's growing intolerance for CBD products that make marketing disease claims. It is important to note all the CBD warning letters included high-risk disease claims such as Alzheimer's, depression, cancer, and PTSD. You may be saying, "of course, companies shouldn't make these claims," which I agree with. However, some of the 26 companies may not have known they were making disease claims, as forgotten several-year-old social media and blogs may have disease claims lurking in them. Here is a post about several-year-old social media posts being called out in a warning letter. CBD for animal products is mentioned in 30% of these 2022 warning letters. It is important to note that the FDA seems to have a lower "tolerance" for claims made about animal products. For example, mentions of "anxiety" and "inflammation" may be enough to attract an animal product warning letter. Still, some higher-risk words such as "depression" are usually present in the human letters. Some of the letters also include bizarre mentions, such as this example of a wrist band that was labeled as a supplement. The issue with this, of course, is that supplements must be ingested. Marketing products like this clearly show the FDA that the company does not understand the basics of dietary supplement regulations. From warning letter: "your website shows Supplement Facts panels for the "Tanka T-FLEX Band ….. your products' labeling states that the products are intended to be worn on the wrist. For example, your website describes how the "patented macromolecular technology works through direct contact with the skin to provide timed controlled-release of up to 30 days." 45% of the warning letters include the disease claim one-two punch "anxiety" and "depression." It should come as no surprise these two disease words continue to be called out in letters. Here is a video about this. Other Common high-risk words are "insomnia," “fibromyalgia,” and “Alzheimer's.” See this post and video for a deeper discussion. From warning letter “post on Instagram states, “What can #CBD do for #animals and our #furbabies ~ #anxiety #inflammation #arthritis #pain #seizures #cancer #cbdoil #health #dogs #cats #horses #cows #freestateoils ->> freestateoils.com/hemp-cbdpellets-for-farm-animals.” The post includes a graphic with photographs of several farm animals and pets, and includes statements such as, “Anti-ANXIETY || Anti - INFLAMMATORY || Anti – ARTHRITIC” The learning target here is the authorities look at the totality of the advertisement. This post is on a social media site that links back to a shopping cart; this is the material connection. The disease hashtags are claims and when a company adds its name in a hashtag, it further elevates the risk. The image with the animals and therapeutic claims such as "anti-anxiety" further demonstrate the intended use of animal disease prevention. Several of the warning letters include study citations. Even mentioning CBD studies on a commercial site is enough to attract a warning letter. Here is an example from one FDA warning letter. "Israeli researchers have launched three clinical trials that utilize CBD's anti-inflammatory properties as potential COVID-19." Here is a post about several CBD companies that received warning letters for similar infractions. More than half of these warning letters include claims made on social media. Here is a post about this. 47% of the warning letters include claims made in blogs. This is a continued enforcement trend, and several letters this year include claims made in old blogs that contained disease words. It is possible the companies didn't realize their several-year-old blogs contained high-risk words. A good reminder for a compliance "tune-up." Here is a post about this. 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 Arthritis Claims Enforcement Learn from other’s mistakes Since the beginning of 2023, 11 warning letters have been issued for arthritis-related supplements and topical product claims. Here, I explore these warning letters, look at common trends, and share key takeaways. Higher-risk disease claims : I have always wondered if making arthritis claims alone is enough to trigger a warning letter. The answer is surprisingly “not really.” All warning letters since the beginning of 2023 have included high-risk words like cancer, depression, and fibromyalgia, except one. This warning letter accompanied GMP citations and included arthritis claims that were part of an out-of-compliance OTC drug that did not follow the official monograph. Social media and YouTube : 45% (5 out of 11) mention claims on social media and YouTube. This is not a surprising number, and it shows FDA’s continued focus on social media marketing claims. Some of the cited social posts were a couple of years old, which is a reminder to ensure even those old posts are “clean” of disease claims. Are you interested in finding the high-risk statements on your website, videos, and content before publishing? My software product, Apex Compliance, can help you identify and replace these high-risk phrases before they lead to warning letters and lawsuits. Our AI has been custom-trained on compliance principles, including warning letters, and it helps you understand what compliant language looks like. Learn more and set up a free demo here . Blogs : 18% include claims made in blogs. I’ve written a lot of this before, such as in this post . GMP Inspections Lead to Marketing Review : 27% of letters started with a GMP inspection, which led to a marketing review. I write more about this here . Drug-spiked ingredients were mentioned in 18% of these letters . The moral of the story is to keep disease words like arthritis out of marketing, and they will signal to authorities to look deeper for other high-risk marketing phrases. 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!

Ensure ESG claims are substantiated < Back Environmental Claims Increase Scrutiny Ensure ESG claims are substantiated We love the environment, but companies making broad sustainability claims are asking for increased scrutiny. This is because statements like “environmentally friendly” and “sustainably sourced” can be interpreted in many ways, and providing the required substantiation is very difficult. A leading meat stick brand faced a challenge at the National Advertising Division (NAD) over its environmental and sourcing claims. In NAD cases, companies typically provide substantiating data to support their claims for review. However, rather than defending its claims, the company chose to remove the challenged environmental statements, including references to the product being “carbon neutral” and “sustainable.” 👉 From NAD. “(NAD) will treat the claims, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended they be discontinued.” Here are a few comments and best practices when making “eco” type claims. Provide measurable outcomes: For example, “Our packaging uses 30% post-consumer recycled content” is less likely to be challenged than “Our packaging is recyclable and sustainable.” Stay Away from Broad Claims: Statements like “No carbon footprint” are well-intentioned but are difficult to support without an offset program or verified calculation on all products. Specific vs. Broad Claims Example 🔹Broad Claim (Risky): “Our protein powder is eco-friendly and helps save the planet.” 🔹Specific Claim (Less Risky): “Our protein powder uses 25% less plastic per container compared to our 2021 packaging, reducing material waste.” Read the NAD decision here . DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 2/12/25 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!

Review old social posts for regulatory “landmines” < Back Seven-Year-Old Facebook Post Leads To Warning Letter Review old social posts for regulatory “landmines” This company received a warning letter for claims made on its website and old social media posts. The oldest post cited in this letter is from 2016, which shows that even old and potentially “forgotten” social posts are active marketing in the eyes of the authorities. Many companies now have “clean” marketing, but they may have inadvertently overlooked the regulatory landmines in their old socials. Now is the time to review and update these old posts (and old blogs). Sign up for this weekly email ! 🔷 Some very high-risk language on Facebook is cited in the letter. 👉 From warning letter.” In a July 29, 2017 post: “Can Plaquex® help prevent cancer?...When I linked the facts of these three independent information sources, the thought came to me, that Plaquex® – Phosphatidylcholine – may be able to prevent cancer.” 🔷 Following the “breadcrumbs” in warning letters is always fun. For example, in this letter, FDA notes that the Facebook page links to a website (book-selling site) that links to another website where customers can order supplements. FDA rarely references anything over “two clicks,” which is what makes this so interesting. FYI, the two-click rule is an urban legend and, as demonstrated in this letter, does not protect from disease claim enforcement. This “commercial bridge” is important, as it’s often cited in warning letters. 🔷 Unfortunately, this warning letter has not stopped the company from continuing to make very high-risk claims, such as statements about ingredients being antidepressant and antiarthritic. Read the full 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!