On November 30, 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a public meeting to consider the need to amend pre-existing guidelines or adopt new ones addressing microbiological safety in cosmetics. The FDA presented the meeting as an opportunity for industry and other stakeholders to provide input on whether current guidelines sufficed to address cosmetic microbiological safety.

The FDA and industry members have long acknowledged the capacity for microorganisms to grow and reproduce in cosmetics if certain precautions are not taken. This growth can cause chemical changes to the products, which may adversely affect the consumer. In explaining the impetus behind the meeting, FDA representatives noted that current FDA guidelines on microbiological safety have not been revised in some time. These guidelines include the Cosmetic Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Guidelines/Inspection Checklist (2008) and the Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM), Chapter 23 “Microbiological Methods for Cosmetics” (2001). FDA representatives stated that they were in the process of revising these guidelines and also considering issuing entirely new guidelines on microbiological safety.


Continue Reading FDA Holds Public Meeting on Cosmetic Microbiological Safety Issues to Consider Need for New Guidelines

Responding to a request from Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), and John Dingell (D-MI), on October 24, 2011, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report which examines how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has addressed “economic adulteration” affecting the products it regulates and makes recommendations for strengthening regulatory and enforcement policies.

For purposes of the GAO evaluation and report, the GAO defined economic adulteration as “the fraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substance in a product for the purpose of increasing the apparent value of the product or reducing the cost of its production, i.e. economic gain.” The GAO study highlighted two specific cases of economic adulteration as indicators of the need for stronger policies to prevent economic adulteration of FDA regulated products. First, in 2007, vegetable protein products were found to contain melamine and cyanuric acid, industrial chemicals, in order to give the products an appearance of a higher protein content. The protein products were subsequently used in pet food and caused an unknown number of illnesses and deaths to dogs and cats. Notably, the melamine contamination case helped to inspire a number of food safety policy reforms, including the enactment of the Food Safety Modernization Act on January 4, 2011, which includes mandatory HACCP-type preventive controls and establishes new safeguards to prevent intentional adulteration of food products. The second case occurred in 2008, and involved the blood thinner known as heparin, which was found to contain oversulfated chondroitin sulfate, a toxic contaminant which was later linked to multiple human illnesses and deaths.


Continue Reading GAO Report Recommends FDA Adopt Definition of Economic Adulteration and Take Steps to Combat Independently from Other Types of Adulteration

Today, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) released a guidance document for industry titled “What You Need to Know About Administrative Detention of Foods.” The guidance comes just a week after the FDA announced its first administrative detention under the expanded authority granted by Congress in the Food Safety Modernization Act. The FDA will issue

On October 19, 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published a final rule amending its bottled water quality standard regulations by establishing an allowable level of di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (“DEHP”). The new DEHP limit and related requirements will take effect on April 16, 2012.
Under Section 410 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”),

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has released a question and answer guide to its implementation of the fee provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011. The purpose of the fee provisions is to allow the FDA to recover reinspection, recall noncompliance, and importer program related costs from domestic and foreign facilities and

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) recently completed an evaluation of the legal basis for federal preemption policy statements the agency has issued under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) during the past 10 years. FDA initiated the review in response to a memorandum issued by President Obama in May 2009 which directed

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing holding that FDA regulations governing generic drug products directly conflict with and preempt state laws that would require generic drug manufacturers to modify the FDA-authorized labeling for their products to provide "adequate warnings" as defined by state law. The Court

Senators Hatch and Harkin, the principle architects of the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) (amending the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)), submitted a letter yesterday to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg "exress[ing] their support for the upcoming new dietary ingredients (NDI) guidance." The Senators stated that the guidance should reflect the intent