Search This Blog

Showing posts with label label claims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label label claims. 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?

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Will December Bring New Proposals for the Dietary Supplement Industry?



Hello and Happy December!

FDA has been busy in the past few months, publishing several draft guidance documents and proposed rules for food safety—including a proposal that would ban partially hydrogenated oils in foods.  They also published updated guidance on cosmetic GMPs but have been relatively quiet about dietary supplements.  However, in September FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) published their “Plan for Program Priorities, 2013-2014” that included quite a list of goals for the dietary supplement program (http://tinyurl.com/nx6hsse). Since there are less than 30 days left in 2013, it will be interesting to see whether FDA will publish a flurry of proposed rules or miss their proposed deadline.

CFSAN’s overall plan for the dietary supplement industry is to “take steps to improve the safety and labeling of dietary supplements and the supply chain.”  It is interesting that the supply chain was mentioned since many dietary supplement manufacturers have complained that the dietary supplement GMPs do not extend to the suppliers, making it difficult for manufacturers to convince raw material suppliers of the importance of good documentation and record keeping that would help manufacturers comply with the GMPs (http://tinyurl.com/lj3z35f).

The CFSAN Plan for Program Priorities goes on to list 5 planned steps to address the safety and labeling of dietary supplements:
     1.       Modernize the postmarket surveillance system for regulating dietary supplements. This was a recommendation from the Department of Health & Human Services Inspector General’s 2012 report, “Dietary Supplements: Structure/Function Claims Fail To Meet Federal Requirements” (http://tinyurl.com/keq4b27). By the way, this document details a study in which the Inspector General’s Office reviewed label claims and the manufacturer’s substantiation dossiers for 72 dietary supplement products.
      2.       Develop and implement risk-based compliance and regulatory strategies to address dietary supplement safety issues.  FDA typically takes a risk-based approach in their oversight and regulatory enforcement actions in regulated industries.  In the past FDA had indicated that they were particularly interested in monitoring the marketplace for claims relating to cancer, diabetes and influenza H1N1; they also watch for supplements that claim to affect memory, sexual function and weight loss.  It is unclear whether FDA will publish their regulatory strategies but we will be watching for updates to their compliance policy and inspection manuals.
     3.      Publish revised draft guidance on new dietary ingredients (NDIs) to increase premarket oversight of dietary supplements.  This highly anticipated guidance could prove to be very interesting.  The first draft was published in July of 2011.  FDA received over 12,000 comments on this document that appeared to the dietary supplement industry to be a substantial overreach by the agency that in effect, would put into place a premarket approval process for dietary supplements; a proposal that appears to violate the enabling legislation of the dietary supplement regulations.  It is unlikely that publication of the revised draft guidance would be received as good wishes for a prosperous new year by industry.
    4.      Publish final guidance on new dietary ingredients (NDIs) to increase premarket oversight of dietary supplements.  While this step is set for 2014, the short timeline indicates that the agency does not expect as many comments as there were for the first draft.  Perhaps they have thoughtfully considered the industry’s previous comments and the document will be something that both industry and regulators will find workable.
    5.      Publish final guidance to help dietary supplement and beverage manufacturers and distributors determine whether a liquid food product (such as energy drinks) may be labeled and marketed as a dietary supplement.  In December of 2009 FDA published a guidance document on “Factors that Distinguish Liquid Dietary Supplements from Beverages…” (http://tinyurl.com/nxjuswg).  FDA issued the guidance at a time when many ‘functional beverages’ were making their way to store shelves.  The apparent aim was to rein in the industry; however the plethora of liquid products available that claim to be dietary supplements but look like beverages is testament to the fact that the 2009 guidance has been largely ignored.

If CFSAN does publish all those proposed documents, we will do our best to keep you up to date without inundating your inbox.  In the meantime, the associates at FDALabels.com and Bioscience Translation & Application are ready to help you ensure that your products are compliant with FDA regulations so that you can enjoy uninterrupted market success.

As always, we hope you find these occasional updates interesting. 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

Thursday, July 18, 2013

NIH's Dietary Supplement Label Database



Earlier this summer the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD).  This website provides label information from supplement products marketed in the US. The database is easily searchable by ingredient, product name and company name and provides a summary of information on the labels as well as label images.  Based on my casual perusal of the database it is clear that very few of the labels would serve as good examples of compliant labels.  Nevertheless, the database has been made available to help medical professionals and researchers know what products are on the market in the US.  It may also serve as a tool for supplement manufacturers wishing to do a bit of market research.

I contacted the NIH with a few questions about this website and received the following response from Therapeutic Research, the contractor responsible for adding and updating dietary supplement labels for the DSLD:
“The primary way we gather and keep labels up to date is through our Manufacturers Connect program. Through this program, we pair one of our research associates with each manufacturer or distributor of dietary supplements. The research associate will contact the company at least annually to determine if there are new or updated products. Additionally, this provides the manufacturer with a single point of contact through which they can notify us of any changes to their formulations.

We ask manufacturers to send us a current list of all dietary supplement products and a clean image or physical copy of the product label for each of the current products. Then our staff will add all of the new products and review any existing entries to ensure the entire product line is up-to-date in the DSLD. We like to have a point of contact with each manufacturer that we can reach out to with any questions that may come up during the entering/updating process. Manufacturers often reach out to us when a product is launched, reformulated, or goes off market. This allows manufacturers to ensure their entries are current throughout the year and not just during the annual review process.”

You may already know whether your labels have become part of this database. Nonetheless, you may follow this link to view the database: http://dsld.nlm.nih.gov/dsld/index.jsp


We at Bioscience Translation & Application and FDALabels.com are ready to help you with your FDA compliance needs.  We send these posts via email to our subscribers.  If you would like to subscribe to our emails on dietary supplements, cosmetics, foods or over the counter drugs, simply reply to this post.