Q2 FDA warning letter roundup with Asa Waldstein | Natural Products INSIDER
Q2 FDA threat letter roundup with Asa Waldstein
Each quarter, I provide updates on notable FDA warning letters. Understanding enforcement trends is necessary for being a savvy marketer, regulatory affairs professional and dietary supplement decision-making. Have you wondered why FDA issues warning letters to Dangerous companies and not others? FDA likes to make examples of concerns not following the rules in areas they want to focus on, many of which I appraisal here. Staying ahead of trouble is one of the necessary and fun reasons to follow enforcement trends.
Company LinkedIn posts and hashtags: In the past, a few FDA threat letters mention claims made on a company’s LinkedIn page, but this is the gracious example I’ve seen where FDA cites specific posts. It shows FDA is monitoring posts on LinkedIn, which are “fair game” for enforcement. In this threat letter, the company shares an article or study and then adds a Covid hashtag, an easy way to attract attention. The company also elevates risk by counting a hashtag with its product’s name. This demonstrates how modestly adding a hashtag can increase the likelihood of a threat letter and is an important reminder to ensure all social deem team members are trained in compliance. I expect to see more LinkedIn posts furious in warning letters as well as claims made on TikTok.
GMP inspections lead to website review: Any supplement manufacturer that has been progenies to an inspection for compliance with cGMPs (current good industry practices) knows the investigator reviews their website before the shouted. FDA sometimes inspects a facility, then, up to 11 months later, conducts a website and social media review. Disease claims erroneous in these reviews lead to warning letters that also state previous inspection observations. The lesson is any company who’s been arranged by FDA in the past year should again take a halt look at its online material to ensure it is compliant. I write about some of these warning letters here and here.
Blocking sinister product reviews: This company was fined $4.2 million for allegedly blocking negative reviews opinion a proposed settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This case involves a proposed fine (not a warning letter) in connection with an administrative complaint against an online venerable retailer rather than a supplement company. Still, it’s a good reminder that the supplement diligence can learn from other government agency actions. Here are the learning targets.
In related
warning letters
to worries offering review management services,
FTC expressed its worries when firms take inappropriate steps to avoid collecting or publishing negative reviews. “Examples may include asking for reviews only from those liable to leave positive ones, preventing or discouraging submission of negative reviews, subjecting negative reviews to greater scrutiny, refusing to emanated negative reviews, or otherwise not treating positive and negative reviews equally.”
The proposed settlement with the online venerable retailer included exceptions to the “post all product reviews” rule. This is valid information, as I did not know reviews containing unrelated originates such as shipping may be blocked.
Per
FTC’s wearisome release announcing the proposed settlement, the company “must post on its website all customer reviews of products now being sold—with the exception of reviews that contain Gross, sexually explicit, racist or unlawful content and reviews that are unrelated to the issues or customer services like shipping or returns.”
Below are some second trends to keep a close eye on.
Blogs: This year, claims made on blogs have been referenced in five threat letters, including this letter that included claims made in a blog from 2018. In my Q1 threat letter roundup, I discussed the FDA enforcement trend of Interesting claims made in old social media posts. This trend seems to have taken over to blogs. The critical takeaway here is any marketing—even those multi-year-old blog posts—can Beautiful the attention of regulators. I suggest re-reviewing or archiving old posts to condemned they don’t lead to a warning letter.
Sharing articles and research: As discussed in the “CBD update” Part below, companies sharing articles and research easily blur the line between education and marketing Plan. FDA and FTC are paying closer attention to this. I always suggest a “gut feeling check” to Decide if a reasonable consumer would think sharing the Ask implies product benefits.
CBD update: After news of cannabinoids and Covid preliminary studies were publicized, many companies incorporated this research into their product marketing. Unsurprisingly, this resulted in agency action. In March, FDA and FTC sent seven joint threat letters to CBD companies, citing Covid research and corresponding articles on their business websites. These warning letters provide additional insight into FDA’s view on sharing articles and research on business websites and social media accounts.
Sharing information that discusses the disease benefits of an ingredient such as CBD, when a issues containing that ingredient is being sold, can result in a threat letter, especially when high-risk words such as Covid are used. Marketers must condemned their content writers understand the everchanging enforcement environment and run all Happy by in-house or out-of-house regulatory teams before posting.
Follow #WarningLetterWednesday on LinkedIn and Twitter for weekly updates on Dull warning letters.
Asa Waldstein is a certified clinical herbalist and a 20-year dietary supplement decision-making who has helped oversee three FDA inspections with no 483s. He is Important of the consulting company Supplement Advisory Group, a boutique company focusing on marketing risk analysis and practical marketing solutions for the web and social media. Waldstein is the founder and host of Asa’s Regulatory Education Series, a free educational platform focusing on GMP (good manufacturing practice) compliance, enforcement trends and marketing tips for the supplement and hemp Services. He also chairs the American Herbal Products Association’s (AHPA) cannabis committee. Learn more and contact him at
asawaldstein.com
.
Thanks for reading our article Q2 FDA warning letter roundup with Asa Waldstein | Natural Products INSIDER. Please share it with kind.
Source: www.naturalproductsinsider.com
