Waiting on FDA

Hello!

I hope that 2016 is off to a good start for you and your business and that you are looking forward to great new things!  While we look forward to seeing what 2016 will bring, many industries continue to wait for action from FDA.  I have listed just a few topics that various industry sectors hope to have clarified in 2016 below.

Foods

It has been two years since FDA proposed dramatic changes to nutrition labeling regulations (http://tinyurl.com/jjvls5q) .  Will the final rule require that ‘Added Sugars’ be listed in the nutrition facts box as originally proposed?  Industry has objected to this particularly since the amount of sugar added to jams, applesauce, etc. can vary with the inherent sweetness of the fruit. Since there is no lab test that can distinguish between naturally-occurring and added sugars, it is difficult to understand how FDA, which prides itself on being a science based organization, can ensure compliance with this rule.

Restaurant Menu Labeling: The publication of the final rules for calorie declarations on restaurant menus was delayed in 2013 and then in 2015 the compliance date for this regulation was delayed by one year to December of 2016.  Will chain restaurants really be required to post caloric values on their menus and menu boards?  While seemingly simple, there are genuine challenges with complying with this rule.  First, the accuracy required by the regulation could be tough to meet since even though restaurants are careful about portioning, there is variation.  Second, the regulation requires chain restaurants to list the calories on alcoholic beverages but the wine, beer and spirits industries are not required to provide calorie information. How is a restaurant supposed to comply? (See more on the rule: http://tinyurl.com/j7vwkgo.)

Pet Foods: In 2007 Congress mandated that FDA take over regulation of pet food.  Since that time FDA has been working with State pet and animal food regulators to come up with ingredient definitions that would meet FDA criteria.  As that progresses, FDA’s Center or Veterinary Medicine is scheduled to publish draft guidance documents that pertain to the pet food industry:

Animal Food Current Good Manufacturing Practices

Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals

Human Food By-Products for Use as Animal Food

Dietary Supplements

It has been four and a half years since the first draft of the proposed guidance on New Dietary Ingredients was published (http://tinyurl.com/jtuqe4r) .  In 2013 FDA has proposed that the final rule would be published in 2014.  We are still waiting but it could be published any day!

Over the Counter Drugs

The FDA monograph that covers hand sanitizers and antibacterial soaps and body washes has been tentative since 1994.  In 2010 a lawsuit was filed to try to force FDA to finalize the monograph.  In December of 2013, FDA published a proposed rule stating that there was not sufficient data to support the safety of these products and that additional data on both safety and clinical benefit was required (http://tinyurl.com/z26bgs4).  The comment period closed in June of 2014 but no final rule has been issued.

Homeopathics

Both the FDA and FTC held hearings in 2015 looking into the regulation of homeopathic medicines.  The tone of these hearings made it very clear that both agencies view homeopathic products as quackery and would like to change the regulatory framework for homeopathic products.  Under the current policy, homeopathic products that comply with the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS) may be marketed in the US.  Unfortunately, some companies have introduced products that do not comply with HPUS to the market.  It seems that this is due, at least in part, to FDA’s complete failure to enforce the current regulations that apply to homoepathics.  This industry is waiting to see whether it will have a place in the US marketplace.

Cosmetics

Will the voluntary cosmetic registration and GMP program become mandatory? For years there have been bills introduced in Congress to more tightly regulate the cosmetic industry.  Discussions on Cosmetic Safety Legislation between the FDA and the cosmetic industry broke down in 2014 (http://tinyurl.com/hkmzhg7). Will we see fundamental changes to the way cosmetics are regulated in 2016?

It can be difficult to keep up with all the possible regulatory changes that can affect your day to day operations.  My associates and I work hard to stay abreast of FDA regulations, policies and related issues so we can help you stay compliant. Contact us with your questions and we’ll do our best to keep you up to date on FDA’s activities.

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.

Regards,

Evelyn & Associates
www.FDALabels.com
www.BioTransApp.com

FDA and Cosmetic Industry Controversies: Anti-aging claims and ingredient safety

Recently the trade publication, Cosmetics Design, published two articles that caught my eye.  One discussed FDA’s Import Alert on cosmetics labeled as anti-aging creams (http://tinyurl.com/n5xq2e6).  The import alert is FDA’s guidance to their staff that inspect imported products.  FDA lists the reason for the alert as,

“There are numerous skin care products on the market with exaggerated "anti aging" claims which cause the products to be unapproved new drugs. Examples of such claims are that the products "counteract," "retard," or "control" the aging process. Claims that the product will "rejuvenate," "repair," or "restructure" the skin may also be drug claims. A claim such as "molecules absorb and expand, exerting upward pressure to 'lift' wrinkles upward" is a claim for an inner structural change that would usually cause a product to be a drug.”

The import alert instructs FDA staff to refuse entry of products with these claims.

This view of anti-aging claims, while in conflict with the marketing programs of many cosmetic manufacturers, is not new to FDA.  In December of 2012, we published a blog post (http://tinyurl.com/kntalmv) about FDA warning letters sent to Avon and Lancôme due to their anti-aging and anti-wrinkle claims.  It is important to note that while imported products have a greater chance of being subject to FDA enforcement actions based on anti-aging claims, products produced and sold domestically in the US are subject to the same rules.  As stated in the Cosmetics Design article the import alert, “is a good reminder for any company.” (http://tinyurl.com/mqrgzno).   

The other interesting article in Cosmetics Design is titled, “PCPC ‘extremely disappointed’ in FDA’s cosmetics legislation decision” (http://tinyurl.com/lsgzb8m).  The PCPC is the Personal Care Products Council and is the leading cosmetic industry group in the US.  The group has long had a cooperative relationship with FDA to determine the safety of cosmetic ingredients and has been working with FDA on potential updates to cosmetic regulations.  With a little searching I was able to find that in September of 2013 FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg sent a letter expressing disappointment with PCPC for being “unable to proceed toward legislation on the basis of the framework agreement” between the two sides.  Earlier this month, Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor, sent a similar letter that also included a critique of the draft legislation proposed by the cosmetic industry (http://tinyurl.com/nydrdgv). Based on this letter it seems that the crux of the disagreement between FDA in industry is on the issue of ingredient safety. 

Industry has apparently proposed that chemicals deemed safe for use in food, drinking water, as well as some ingredients used in drugs, be deemed safe for use in cosmetics.  FDA’s position is that safety for ingestion is not the same as safety for topical use and gives examples of some that would not necessarily also be safe in cosmetics.  For example, the Deputy Commissioner notes that sodium hydroxide and ascorbic acid may be used as buffering and neutralizing agents in foods without restrictions but that both chemicals have been associated with harm to hair and scalp due to high levels that have been used in some hair straightening and relaxing products.  It should be noted that the high levels of these ingredients that would be used in hair relaxing/straightening products go well beyond buffering and neutralizing effects to make either very alkaline or very acidic solutions.  Accordingly, it seems to me that if used only as buffers and neutralizers in cosmetics, sodium hydroxide and ascorbic acid could be safe for use in cosmetics without restriction just as for food while leaving room to restrict uses at levels that exceed those neutralizing effects.  It could be very difficult and expensive for the cosmetic industry if an agreement on how to determine which cosmetic ingredients are safe cannot be reached.

Deputy Commissioner Taylor’s letter also discusses objections FDA has to industry proposals for cosmetic product registration and listing as well as for facility inspections, adverse event reporting and recalls.  I will save discussion of those other topics for another message.

All in all, it is clear from the tone of the FDA letter that there has been a breach of trust.  In fact, Mr. Taylor states, “Because your proposal meets none of the safety goals on which we had all agreed last year, I have difficulty seeing a path forward in this process.”  In the Cosmetic Design article PCPC President Lezlee Westine is quoted as responding, “We are extremely disappointed that FDA has indicated they will not participate in further discussions with the cosmetics industry regarding cosmetic legislation and have taken such a hard line approach to our efforts to operate in good faith.”

I hope for the sake of the cosmetic industry and consumers that FDA and cosmetic industry representatives can overcome their disappointment and renew the good working relationship they previously had.

As always, it is my hope that you find these occasional updates interesting and informative. 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.

Best regards,

Evelyn and Associates

www.FDALabels.com

www.BioTransApp.com

New Proposal on Antibacterial Soaps

Greetings!

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013, FDA published a proposed amendment to the tentative final monograph for topical antiseptic/antimicrobial products (http://tinyurl.com/qbatlul). The proposed rule addresses the formulation of “consumer antiseptic products intended for use with water” or in laymen’s terms, antibacterial hand and body washes.

Products intended to kill bacteria and other microbes are regulated as drugs by FDA.  Such products sold over the counter (without a prescription) must conform to FDA monographs that detail the ingredients, concentrations and labeling that is to be used on over the counter drug products of a given class.  The process by which a monograph becomes final involves a great deal of data review; proposed rules; public comments and resolution of those comments with FDA’s mission to protect public health.  In the case of topical antimicrobial products the process stalled in 1994 with publication of a so-called “tentative final monograph” (TFM) that questioned the safety and efficacy of a number of common active ingredients in those products.

In April of 2011 we wrote about (http://tinyurl.com/pexls8k) certain regulatory actions FDA took based on the tentative final monograph and noted that a lawsuit had been filed in 2010 that sought to force FDA to finalize the monograph.  The lawsuit was filed by the National Resources Defense Council and less than one month ago FDA entered into a consent decree to finalize the monograph in a timely manner. Tuesday’s proposed rule is a result of this consent decree.

The rule proposes that additional safety data is necessary to support the use of consumer antiseptic wash active ingredients and that the active ingredients must also have data demonstrating a clinical benefit over nonantibacterial soap and water.  The proposed rule states in part,

“Several important scientific developments that affect the safety evaluation of these ingredients have occurred since FDA’s 1994 evaluation of the safety of consumer antiseptic active ingredients under the OTC Drug Review. New data suggest that the systemic exposure to these active ingredients is higher than previously thought, and new information about the potential risks from systemic absorption and long-term exposure have become available. New safety information also suggests that widespread antiseptic use can have an impact on the development of bacterial resistance.”

The document also discusses some of the underlying concerns for these types of products:

“Since the 1994 TFM was published, new data have become available indicating that systemic exposure to topical antiseptic active ingredients may be more than previously thought. Systemic exposure refers to the presence of antiseptic active ingredients inside and throughout the body. For example, triclosan is an antiseptic active ingredient commonly found in consumer antiseptic hand and body wash products. It is absorbed through the skin and has been found in both human breast milk and urine. Further, triclosan has been found at relatively consistent levels in urine samples collected from a representative sample of the U.S. population since sampling began in 2003. We believe that the consequences of this systemic exposure need to be assessed.”

The document goes on to discuss the data gaps for several of the active ingredients; gaps that must be filled in order for the products to remain on the market in the future. Over 20 ingredients that require additional safety and efficacy data are listed.  Some commonly used ingredients included on the list are Benzalkonium chloride, Benzethonium chloride, Triclosan, Triclocarban, Hexylresorcinol, Povidone-iodine Fluorosalan, Hexachlorophene, Methylbenzethonium chloride and Phenol.

So how long does industry have to submit safety and effectiveness data? As outlined in Hyman, Phelps and McNamara’s Law Blog of November 28, 2013 (http://tinyurl.com/owp928g), the consent decree detailed a timeline that stipulates that the final monograph must be published by September 15, 2016. In the proposed rule FDA has stated that the effective date for compliance with what would be the new monograph would be one year after publication of the final rule, which means September 15, 2017 if the timeline is met.

FDA’s proposal will be costly to industry and many in the public will be sorry to see changes to highly favored products.  It will be interesting to see which ingredients pass muster.  In the meantime, Americans can reduce their exposure to the ingredients of concern by following the Center for Disease Controls instructions for hand washing with nonantimicrobial soap: http://www.cdc.gov/features/handwashing/.

As always, the associates of FDALabels.com and Bioscience Translation & Application are ready to assist you with your FDA regulatory questions. Contact us today at info@FDAlabels.com or info@BioTransApp.com. I you find our posts informative, consider visiting 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 and yours as we approach 2014!

Sincerely,

Evelyn & Associates

Bioscience Translation & Application     www.BioTransApp.com

FDALabels.com                                                www.FDALabels.com

Services of Cadman Consulting Services, LLC

Labels as Tables of Contents

Greetings!

Last month I attended Supply Side West where my company, in conjunction with Nosco, Inc (http://www.nosco.com/), presented information on packaging, labeling and compliance.  I spoke to a small group of attendees about how labels function as the table of contents to information about your product; information that can guide an inspection of your manufacturing facility.  For instance, the net contents statement clues an inspector in on the type of equipment they will be reviewing: liquid or powder fill, tableting or encapsulation.  Whether the product is a food, drug, cosmetic or dietary supplement, the statement of identity, along with product claims, determines which regulations apply.  Claims used on the product label also convey the amount and type of data that should be on file to support the claims so that you can comply with the requirement that all claims be truthful, not misleading and supported by data.

If the product is a dietary supplement, the supplement facts box outlines the manufacturing process.  If the facts box lists a proprietary blend, then the standard operating procedure or SOP should reflect a blending step.  The supplement facts box can provide a list of herbs that may require identity testing or that may need to be the subject of a new dietary ingredient notification. Nutrition Facts boxes on foods or Drug Facts boxes on over the counter drug products guide inspectors to look for data to support the values declared or to demonstrate adherence to applicable monographs.The ingredient list is another place when an inspector may look for ingredients that may not be permitted in products marketed in the United States.

Finally, the signature line listing the name and place of business of the company introducing the product into the marketplace, assigns responsibility for compliance with labeling regulations, good manufacturing practices and adverse event reporting system. In the event an inspector finds something amiss, the signature line names the company that will get the 483 or possible warning letter.

With so much riding on the information listed on your product label, don’t ignore the importance of ensuring that your labeling is correct and complies with FDA regulations.   Visit our websites, www.BioTransApp.com or www.FDAlabels.com for more information on labeling or other FDA compliance issues.  This blog discusses issues pertinent to FDA-regulated industries. Post a comment to let us know if you would like to subscribe to occasional email updates targeted to your industry sector.


Copyright 2011 Bioscience Translation & Application

Press Release:

 

Press Release

Evelyn Cadman Bioscience Translation & Application a service of Cadman Consulting Services, LLC Zachary Brousseau Senior Manager, Communications, RAPS +1 301 770 2920, ext. 245; zbrousseau@raps.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 13, 2011

Evelyn Cadman of Bioscience Translation & Application, Contributes to New Edition of RAPS’ Essential Regulatory Affairs Text Book

Fundamentals of US Regulatory Affairs, Seventh Edition now available

Rockville, MD, USA—The Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS) has published a new edition of its popular text, Fundamentals of US Regulatory Affairs, regarded by many as the essential reference guide to regulatory affairs for healthcare products marketed in the US. Among the book’s authors is Evelyn Cadman of Bioscience Translation & Application.  Fundamentals of US Regulatory Affairs, Seventh Edition covers US regulatory requirements across healthcare product lines, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, biologics and other product classifications. Ms. Cadman wrote the chapter on cosmetic regulations, co-authored the chapter on Dietary Supplements and Homeopathic Products and edited and updated the chapter on Food Products.

The seventh edition of US Fundamentals has been updated to address current regulatory requirements from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other state and federal agencies, throughout the product lifecycle. New in this edition are chapters on Drug, Biologic and Device Regulatory Pathways; FDA Communications and Meetings; Patents and Exclusivity; and Veterinary Products.

“Advances in medical science and technology are happening faster than ever. Regulations and official guidances from FDA and other agencies overseeing the drugs, medical devices and other healthcare products we use every day are also evolving rapidly,” said RAPS Executive Director Sherry Keramidas, PhD, FASAE, CAE. “It is absolutely critical for regulatory professionals of all experience levels to have the most current information available, and Fundamentals of US Regulatory Affairs is an indispensible tool for both learning and reference.”

The book is well-suited to professionals new to US regulatory affairs, those preparing for the US Regulatory Affairs Certification (RAC) exam or those looking for a refresher or reference on US regulatory requirements, processes and concepts. It is used as an important training tool at many prominent healthcare organizations and is a mandatory text for many university-level courses.

Fundamentals of US Regulatory Affairs, Seventh Edition is available for purchase online from the RAPS Store for $239.95 with free shipping for RAPS members or $299.95, plus shipping, for nonmembers. It can also be purchased as part of an RAC (US) exam prep package. An updated e-book version will be available soon.

About RAPS

The Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS) is an international membership organization of regulatory professionals in the rapidly growing medical device, pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. Regulatory professionals play vital roles in making better healthcare products possible. They work throughout the healthcare product lifecycle, ensuring these products are safe and effective, while driving organizational strategy and sound decision-making. RAPS supports these individuals and the regulatory profession by providing education and training, Regulatory Affairs Certification (RAC), professional standards, research, knowledge-sharing, publications, networking, career development opportunities and other valuable resources; and is committed to helping its members continually develop the knowledge and skills they need to excel. RAPS is headquartered near Washington, DC, with offices in Brussels and Tokyo. RAPS.org

###

Making better healthcare products possible^sm

5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 550 •Rockville, MD 20852 •Phone: +1 301 770 2920 

 •Fax: +1 301 770 2924 •www.raps.org