Search This Blog

Showing posts with label cosmetic labels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cosmetic labels. Show all posts

Saturday, November 14, 2015

FDA is finally addressing requests for a definition of “Natural”



The agency has avoided the issue for years but on November 12, 2015 the FDA published a “Request for Information and Comments” on the use of the term “Natural” in the labeling of human food products (http://tinyurl.com/ngvxw9a).  Note that the general term "food" includes dietary supplements. While cosmetics and pet foods are not part of this request for comments, it is highly likely that any definition of “natural” for use in food labeling will influence the labeling of other FDA-regulated products.  

The Federal Register Notice provides a brief history of FDA’s stance on the term “natural” and lists a number of questions the agency would like respondents to the request for information and comments to answer. From the brief history: Three Federal district courts hearing cases on natural labeling for foods containing genetically engineered ingredients and a fourth with a case on natural labeling for high fructose corn syrup have made referrals or requests to FDA for a definition of natural. There have also been several citizen petitions regarding use of the term “natural” in food labeling, including one from Consumers Union that asked the agency to prohibit the use of the term “natural” in food labeling since consumer expectations of the meaning of the term differs so much from how the term is used in the marketplace.

Previously FDA regulations have only defined natural in terms of colors and flavors (21 CFR 101.22).  The agency considers any added color to be artificial even if derived from fruits, vegetables or other natural sources.  (Compare to dyeing hair with henna—even though henna is a plant extract, it still alters the hair’s natural color.) 

According to FDA, natural flavors are substances used to impart flavor that are derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof.
[Note that FDA provides this definition in a backhanded way since 21 CFR 101.22 actually only defines artificial flavors as “any substance, the function of which is to impart flavor, which is not derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof.” The definition of artificial flavor also includes any lab synthesized versions of flavor molecules.  It is interesting to note that European countries allow use of the term ‘natural identical’ for lab-synthesized flavors but FDA deems them artificial.]    

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which oversees the labeling of foods containing meat and poultry, defines a natural food as one that “contains no artificial ingredients and is only minimally processed.”  The FSIS’s Food Standards and Labeling Policy book (see link on this page: http://tinyurl.com/nqbbutn) provides details on the meaning of ‘artificial’ and minimally processed:
(1) the product does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredient, or chemical preservative (as defined in 21 CFR 101.22), or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient; and (2) the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed. Minimal processing may include: (a) those traditional processes used to make food edible or to preserve it or to make it safe for human consumption, e.g., smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, and fermenting, or (b) those physical processes which do not fundamentally alter the raw product and/or which only separate a whole, intact food into component parts, e.g., grinding meat, separating eggs into albumen and yolk, and pressing fruits to produce juices.

As a matter of policy FDA has stated that they consider natural to mean, “that nothing artificial or synthetic (including colors regardless of source) is included in, or has been added to, the product that would not normally be expected to be there.”  This policy comes from FDA’s 1991 proposed rule for nutrient content claims in which the agency also proposed defining fresh and natural. http://tinyurl.com/odllnwj

While the agency did define fresh (21CFR101.95) they were unable to define “natural” because, “none of the comments provided FDA with a specific direction to follow for developing a definition regarding the use of the term ‘natural.’  Clearly it is up to concerned citizens, including industry and anyone who eats to help FDA arrive at a meaningful definition of “natural”,

The recent request for comments includes a long list of questions FDA has on the topic including, whether the food preparation or manufacturing processes should be considered; whether agricultural practices should be considered and whether genetically engineered foods should be allowed to be labeled as natural. (Scroll down to see FDA’s full list of questions.)

You may submit comments on “natural” labeling by visiting http://tinyurl.com/qdqr9b9). Or if you prefer, send us your comments and we will collate them into a submission to FDA.

Please use this link http://eepurl.com/Imbjv to subscribe to our occasional email newsletters regarding FDA regulations and other topics of interest to FDA-regulated companies.  We send messages targeted to the dietary supplement, cosmetic, food, OTC drug and medical device industry sectors.  You may subscribe to one or all of the newsletters and you may unsubscribe at any time.


All the best to you!
Evelyn & Associates

www.FDALabels.com
www.BioTransApp.com



Here are the questions FDA is seeking input on as they develop a definition for natural in food labeling. (You do not have to address all of the questions in your comments.)
:
• Should we define, through rulemaking, the term ‘‘natural?’’ Why or why not?
• Should we prohibit the term ‘‘natural’’ in food labeling? Why or why not?
• If we define the term ‘‘natural,’’ what types of food should be allowed to bear the term ‘‘natural?’’
• Should only raw agricultural commodities be able to bear the term? Why or why not? Section 201(r) of the FD&C Act defines the term ‘‘raw agricultural commodity’’ as ‘‘any food in its raw or natural state, including all fruits that are washed, colored, or otherwise treated in their unpeeled natural form prior to marketing.’’
• Should only single ingredient foods, e.g., bottled water or bagged spinach, be able to bear the term? Why or why not?
• If multi-ingredient foods should be able to bear the term, what type(s) of ingredients would disqualify the food from bearing the term? Please explain why such disqualification would be warranted.
• We are interested in any data or other information to suggest that consumers associate, confuse, or compare the term ‘‘natural’’ with ‘‘organic’’ (the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service administers the National Organic Program, which enforces laws and regulations regarding certified organic foods). We are interested in data and other information about consumers’ understanding of foods labeled ‘‘natural’’ versus ‘‘organic.’’ Is the term ‘‘natural’’ on food labels perceived by consumers the same way as ‘‘organic?’’ Or is ‘‘natural’’ perceived by consumers to be ‘‘better’’ (or not as good as) ‘‘organic?’’ Please provide consumer research or other evidence to support your comment.
• If we were to revise our policy regarding the use of the term ‘‘natural’’ or engage in rulemaking to establish a regulatory definition for ‘‘natural,’’ should certain production practices used in agriculture, for example, genetic engineering, mutagenesis, hybridization, the use of pesticides, or animal husbandry practices, be a factor in defining ‘‘natural?’’ Why or why not?
• We are interested in any data or other information to suggest that consumers associate, confuse, or compare the term ‘‘natural’’ with ‘‘healthy.’’ We have a regulation that defines the term ‘‘healthy’’ when used as an implied nutrient content claim with specific conditions related to the food’s nutrient profile that must be met in order to use the term on the label or in labeling of a food (see § 101.65(d)). We are interested in data and other information about consumers’ understanding of foods labeled ‘‘natural’’ versus ‘‘healthy.’’ Is the term ‘‘natural’’ on food labels perceived by consumers the same way as ‘‘healthy?’’ Or is ‘‘natural’’ perceived by consumers to be ‘‘better’’ (or not as good as) ‘‘healthy?’’ Do consumers view ‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘healthy’’ as synonymous terms? Please provide consumer research or other evidence to support your comment.
• Should manufacturing processes be considered in determining when a food can bear the term ‘‘natural?’’ For example, should food manufacturing processes, such as drying, salting, marinating, curing, freezing, canning, fermenting, pasteurizing, irradiating, or hydrolysis, be a factor in defining ‘‘natural?’’
• Should the term ‘‘natural’’ only apply to ‘‘unprocessed’’ foods? If so, how should ‘‘unprocessed’’ and ‘‘processed’’ be defined for purposes of bearing the claim? If the term natural should include some processing methods, what should those methods be? In making determinations related to processing, should one look at the process to make a single ingredient of a food, or does one evaluate the process done to the formulated finished food product (or both)?
• The current policy regarding use of the term ‘‘natural’’ hinges in part on the presence or absence of synthetic ingredients. For example, under the current policy synthetic forms of Vitamin D would not be used in a food claiming to be ‘‘natural,’’ whereas naturally sourced Vitamin D (e.g., from salmon or egg yolks) could be. Should the manner in which an ingredient is produced or sourced affect whether a food containing that ingredient may be labeled as ‘‘natural?’’ Please explain your reasoning.
• What can be done to ensure that consumers have a consistent and accurate understanding of the term ‘‘natural’’ in food labeling to ensure that it is not misleading?
• What are the public health benefits, if any, of defining the term ‘‘natural’’ in food labeling? Please provide supporting data and other information to support your comment.
• Should ‘‘natural’’ have some nutritional benefit associated with it? If so, what should be the benefit? What nutrients should be considered? What data are available to support the association between ‘‘natural’’ and a given nutritional benefit, and/or between ‘‘natural’’ and certain nutrients?
• How might we determine whether foods labeled ‘‘natural’’ comply with any criteria for bearing the claim?

Monday, July 21, 2014

What's not to like on Facebook? FDA's View




Sometimes FDA and other government agencies seem to be a bit behind the times but just last week FDA published the 19th warning letter to mention Facebook.  Some of these letters from the past three years have also cited Twitter and Tumblr as sources of violative claims.  While these letters were primarily directed at dietary supplement companies, food, cosmetic and even drug companies can easily run afoul of FDA regulations on social media sites.

The most recent warning letter to mention Facebook, which was sent to Zarbee’s Inc. of Draper, UT. not only cites the company’s own Facebook postings but notes that “Zarbees “liked” the following comment...” and goes on to quote from customer posts noting how well the products worked for coughs, insomnia and other ailments.   In 2012 FDA had disliked the like that AMARC Enterprises, Inc. of El Cajon, CA gave to one of its customer’s posts about using their dietary supplement product for cancer.

The concept that testimonials presented on company websites and in other marketing materials are claims that are subject to regulatory scrutiny is not new.. In 2009 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a guidance document on testimonials and endorsements in advertising http://tinyurl.com/kdxnoqa  noting that they, like all marketing claims must be truthful, not misleading and supported by data.  FDA expands requirements for endorsements and testimonials to require that they comply with regulations on allowable claims.

All companies like positive comments and testimonials from customers.  While consumer comments are not a new phenomenon, the consumer’s ability to publish their comments to the world on social media sites is new.  So what is a company to do when a happy customer posts something that makes a claim that violates the regulations governing the compliant marking of their product?  

Several of the Facebook warning letters included this note from FDA,
“We advise you review all the information on your websites, including testimonials, social media websites (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), product labels, and other labeling and promotional materials for your products to ensure the claims you make are not in violation of the FD&C Act. It is your responsibility to assure compliance with all requirements of federal law and FDA regulations.”
The last sentence makes it clear: Companies must closely monitor their social media for compliance with FDA regulations. If a post about a product goes beyond what is allowed by regulation, the posts must be deleted or edited to become compliant.
·        If you are a dietary supplement company and a customer posts that your product cured an ailment or relieved pain; your product just became an unapproved new drug subject to FDA enforcement.
·        If you are a cosmetic company and a happy customer states that your oil healed their skin condition, that oil just became an unapproved new drug subject to FDA enforcement.
·        If you are selling an OTC drug and a customer posts about a use that is not covered in the approved labeling of your product, you are also subject to FDA enforcement action.

My colleagues and I can help you stay out of trouble by reviewing or monitoring your website and social media posts, as well as your product labels and brochures for FDA compliance.  Contact us with your questions.

It is my hope that you will find these occasional updates interesting. If so, you may use this link http://eepurl.com/Imbjv to subscribe to our occasional email newsletters regarding FDA regulations and other topics of interest to FDA-regulated companies.  We send messages targeted to the dietary supplement, cosmetic, food, OTC drug and medical device industry sectors.  You may subscribe to one or all of the newsletters and you may unsubscribe at any time. Please post any questions you may have.  My associates and I stand ready to help you with your FDA regulatory issues.

All the best to you!
Evelyn & Associates


Tuesday, June 4, 2013

FDA Update on Importing Cosmetics



FDA recently updated the web page, “Information for Cosmetic Importers.”  This document uses a question and answer format and the update offers some clarification on the use of INCI (International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredient) names for cosmetic ingredients:

Is INCI nomenclature acceptable for identifying botanical ingredients?
INCI (International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredient) names for botanical ingredients typically use Latin names for genus and species to identify botanical ingredients. U.S. regulations require the use of common or usual names. Latin terms may be included parenthetically following the common or usual name of an ingredient. Example: Aloe (Aloe Barbadensis) Extract. See “FDA Response to CTFA Requests Regarding Harmonization of Ingredient Names (Color Additives, Denatured Alcohol, and Plant Extracts).”

It is very helpful to have this information spelled out by the agency since previously I and others have received conflicting information from the agency on the use of INCI names.

The related topic of C.I. numbers (used in European labeling) is also covered in the update:

Are C.I. numbers acceptable for identifying color additives on cosmetic labeling?
C.I. numbers are not acceptable on product labeling unless they are preceded by the color additive names accepted in the U.S. followed by the C.I. number in parentheses. In addition, C.I. numbers do not indicate FDA approval or FDA color certification. To learn more, see “Color Additives and Cosmetics” and the additional resources listed on that page.

Unfortunately, FDA has not been able to provide true clarity for what ingredients are and are not allowed in cosmetic ingredients.  The import update states that not all ingredients permitted use in cosmetics sold outside the US are permitted in the US and links to a very short list of prohibited ingredients.  But the update goes on to state, “But remember, any ingredient is prohibited if it causes the finished cosmetic product to be unsafe for consumers under labeled or customary conditions for use, even if there is no regulation specifically prohibiting or restricting its use in cosmetics.”  The associated link leads the reader to the brief list of prohibited ingredients and this Q&A:

Are these the only ingredients that can cause a product to become violative?

No. A product may become adulterated or misbranded in a number of ways. Among these are improperly used color additives or any ingredient, other than a coal-tar hair dye, that causes a cosmetic to be harmful under customary or usual conditions of use, or cause a cosmetic to become misbranded, as stated in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Sections 601 and 602. Additionally, an ingredient having a history of use in or as a cosmetic may at any time have its safety brought into question by new information.

So what is a cosmetic importer to do to determine whether an ingredient is permitted in the US?  Associates at Bioscience Translation &Application and FDALabels.com search various references and databases for safety information to provide guidance on levels of ingredients that are likely to be considered safe by FDA when reviewing cosmetic formulations for clients.  We are ready to help you with your questions about this or our other regulatory affairs services.

These blog pots are also sent as Informational emails to our subscribers.  If you would like to subscribe to our periodic updates on foods, dietary supplements or over the counter drugs, reply to this post.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Wrinkles and FDA Cosmetic Update



It has been many months since we’ve posted anything on cosmetic regulations. This edition is to make you aware of recent FDA enforcement actions and some proposed legislation that you should be aware of.

We have had discussions with many of our clients about ‘wrinkle claims’.  Typically we note that cosmetic regulations allow claims regarding how a product cleanses, beautifies, promotes attractiveness, or alters appearance or fragrance and that claims about wrinkle reduction are therapeutic or drug claims.  Many of you have responded with questions similar to ‘what about all the big guys and the stuff they say in their commercials?’  Well, a few of the big guys received warning letters from FDA regarding their claims.

In October FDA sent Avon a warning letter regarding claims made on their website about their Anew line of products. The letter lists a number of claims including
“Rebuild collagen to help plump out lines and wrinkles.
Stimulate elastin to help improve elasticity and resilience.
Regenerate hydroproteins to help visibly minimize creasing.”
The letter also notes claims comparing Avon products to botox and goes on to say, “Your products are not generally recognized among qualified experts as safe and effective for the above referenced uses and, therefore, the products are new drugs as defined in section 201(p) of the [Food Drug and Cosmetic] Act.”

In September LancĂ´me also received a warning letter noting numerous drug claims on their Genefique line of products.  While one claim cited in the letter did discuss wrinkles, “See significant deep wrinkle reduction in UV damaged skin, clinically proven,” the LancĂ´me website claimed that their products stimulate stem cells.  It may be that it was the stem cell claims that prompted FDA to act but the fact that wrinkle claims were also cited is noteworthy.

Cosmetics may be promoted to reduce the appearance of wrinkles but not to repair, correct, plump or make them go away.

Now for the future: Last April US Congressman Leonard Lance of New Jersey introduced a Bill in the US House of Representatives.  The Cosmetic Safety Amendments Act of 2012 proposes “to establish new procedures and requirements for the registration of the cosmetic product manufacturing establishments, the submission of cosmetic product and ingredient statements, and the reporting of serious and unexpected cosmetic product adverse events, and for other purposes.” 

For a number of years FDA has had the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP) in place.  This program is ‘regulations light’ but mirrors the drug listing and registration program.  I have heard rumors that cosmetic good manufacturing practice regulations have been written but have not seen them published this year; which is not surprising since much in government was on hold in 2012 due to the Presidential election and remains on hold awaiting the outcome of Congressional efforts to address looming budget cuts and tax changes. Nevertheless, it is important for cosmetic companies to be aware that they will be affected by future increased regulation.

To read an intelligent and information article about the legislation, visit FDALawBlog at http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_blog_hyman_phelps/2012/04/representative-leonard-lance-r-nj-introduces-industry-supported-bill-to-modernize-cosmetics-regulation.htmlhttp://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_blog_hyman_phelps/2012/04/representative-leonard-lance-r-nj-introduces-industry-supported-bill-to-modernize-cosmetics-regulation.html


I hope you find these periodic posts informative and interesting.  If you  would like to be added to our newsletter distribution list, please reply to this post. 

Contact us with any questions you have regarding cosmetic, food or dietary supplement regulations.