Posts Tagged Food and Drug Administration

An Update on FDA Concerns Over Homeopathic Teething Products


Steven Novella recently wrote a post discussing an FDA warning against the use of homeopathic teething products over safety concerns related to the possibility of toxic amounts of belladonna. He goes into the hypocrisy of the FDA regulation of homeopathic products, a topic covered numerous times here on Science-Based Medicine, as well as the misleading initial response from Hyland’s, producers of the most popular homeopathic teething remedies in the United States and Canada. There have been some updates over the past two weeks that I’ll cover in this post. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Stem Cell Tourism for Eye Disease: No Passport Required


Stem cell clinics outside the United States, and outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. regulations, have flourished and the pursuit of treatment at these centers has been called “stem cell tourism.” Seekers of unproven stem cell therapies no longer need to look outside the U.S. Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell researcher and leading advocate for the responsible use of stem cell technology, wrote an SBM post on the regulatory aspects of stem cell treatment, a highly recommended read. He also coauthored an article highlighting the direct-to-consumer stem cell industry in the United States. For now, the article is behind a paywall. Fortunately, David Gorski summarized the article here. The authors found a shocking 351 businesses advertising stem cell treatment at 570 locations in the U.S. The problem is that the proliferation of for-profit facilities far outpaces the science on stem cell therapies. Most of these facilities are selling treatments without proven value and with mostly unknown safety.

Clearly, there is no shortage of “experts” prepared to sell you expensive, unproven stem cell treatments for a multitude of diseases. So who can you trust? If I wanted a source of reliable information about stem cell treatment, I might be tempted to seek out the world’s leading homeopathic ophthalmologist!

Introducing: the World’s Leading Homeopathic Ophthalmologist

How do I know Dr. Edward Kondrot is the world’s leading homeopathic ophthalmologist? It says so, right on his website. But it would be an injustice to simply characterize Dr. Kondrot as a homeopathic ophthalmologist. Dr. Kondrot is a Renaissance man of alternative medicine. He is a Board Certified Ophthalmologist, author, radio show host, Fellow of the College of Syntronics, Research Chairman for the College of Syntronics, Adjunct Professor Department of Research at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, President of the Arizona Integrative and Homeopathic Medical Association and member American Academy of Ozonotherapy, just to name a few of the credentials listed on his bio. If you Google Dr. Kondrot’s name you will find he has quite a presence on the internet. I find this video to be particularly endearing. (more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

FDA Warns About Homeopathic Teething Products

homeopathic-teething-croppedThe FDA recently put out a consumer warning about homeopathic teething gels and pills. The warning states:

The FDA recommends that consumers stop using these products and dispose of any in their possession.

The warning is not because all homeopathic products are inherently useless. As we have discussed here often, the basic principles of homeopathy are pure pseudoscience. The practice of diluting substances so that almost no or no active ingredient remains means that most homeopathic products are just sugar pills. Further, clinical studies show that homeopathic products don’t work. There isn’t a single homeopathic product that has been shown to be effective for a single condition with rigorous clinical trials.

The FDA acknowledges this, writing in their warning:

Homeopathic teething tablets and gels have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safety or efficacy. The agency is also not aware of any proven health benefit of the products, which are labeled to relieve teething symptoms in children.


Posted in: Homeopathy

Leave a Comment (0) →

FDA efforts to improve compounded drug safety upsets naturopaths

Favorite naturopathic treatments comprise pumping patients full of dubious mixtures by injection, including IV drips. Naturopaths also employ topicals (salves, ointments and creams), rectal, and vaginal suppositories, and oral medications, such as bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, all made from “natural” substances.

According to the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP)

these nutritional, herbal and homeopathic remedies are compounded to meet unique patient needs and are not typically available from the large drug manufacturers that don’t make small batches of such specialized products.

Not to mention the fact that it is highly doubtful these questionable remedies could make it through the FDA drug approval process, which requires proven safety and efficacy.

The FDA’s recent steps to improve drug compounding safety is a welcome curb on these practices. Draft Guidance issued in April addresses both compounding for office use and by prescription. (“Office use” refers to creating a supply of a compounded drug to be used by a health care practitioner as needed, as opposed to compounding a drug per a specific prescription for an individual patient.) In June, the FDA also issued an Interim Policy on substances that can be used in compounding a drug. We’ll discuss how these affect naturopathic practice in a moment. (more…)

Posted in: Guidelines, Herbs & Supplements, Homeopathy, Legal, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

False balance about Stanislaw Burzynski and his disproven cancer therapy, courtesy of STAT News

Stanislaw Burzynski: 40 years of failure to prove that his antineoplastons are effective against cancer.

Stanislaw Burzynski: 40 years of failure to prove that his antineoplastons are effective against cancer.

One common theme that has been revisited time and time again on this blog since its very founding is the problem of how science and medicine are reported. For example, back when I first started blogging, years before I joined Science-Based Medicine in 2008, one thing that used to drive me absolutely nuts was the tendency of the press to include in any story about vaccines an antivaccine activist to “tell the other side” or to “balance” the story. So in a story on vaccines, on one side you would have Paul Offit, a bona fide, legitimate vaccine expert, and on the other side you would have J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield, or a lesser light of the antivaccine movement. This same trope included stories about autistic children in which a reporter does a human interest story about a family struggling with raising an autistic child in which he lets the parents spout antivaccine misinformation, providing only a brief token quote by a scientist for “balance.” Thus, whether they intended it or not, the reporter would let the emotional impact of the story serve as persuasion to believe the parents’ antivaccine views. So, even though there was not (and hasn’t been at least since 2001 or probably much earlier) anything resembling legitimate scientific controversy over the question of whether vaccines cause or contribute to autism, the press aided the antivaccine movement in keeping alive the appearance of a controversy. It was, as I like to call these things, a manufactroversy, a controversy manufactured by the antivaccine movement to give the appearance of an actual scientific controversy. It’s a time-dishonored journalistic failing that is still a major problem with reporting on, for example, anthropogenic global climate change and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Sometimes, however, the press is teachable. A few years ago, after already having blogged about vaccines and autism for several years, I started noticing fewer stories with false “balance” and more stories that simply treated the antivaccine movement like the fringe movement it was, either not bothering to mention it or, if it had to mention it, basically letting scientists explain why it’s bad science and dangerous to public health. These days, false balance and stories that are antivaccine propaganda are relatively rare, aside from stories by fringe journalists like Sharyl Attkisson and Ben Swann. That’s a good thing. Unfortunately, I wish I could say that I really believe it was due to the efforts of skeptics and science advocates more than it was due to the discrediting of a major antivaccine figure, Andrew Wakefield, but even six years after Wakefield lost his medical license and saw his infamous 1998 Lancet paper linking the MMR vaccine to bowel disease in autistic children (the one that ignited the MMR scare in the UK) retracted, I’m not entirely sure. Be that as it may, there still remain blind spots in the press. (more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

Supplements, Lies, and a Lengthy Transcript

Thanks, Congress, for making bull testicles available as a dietary supplement!

Thanks, Congress, for making bull testicles available as a dietary supplement!

On October 21, 1993, there was a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee for Labor and Human Resources, with the long-winded title:

Examining How the Federal Government Should Regulate the Marketing and Use of Dietary Supplements and Related Measures, Including S. 784, To Strengthen Federal Standards with Respect To Dietary Supplements.

S. 784, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, would eventually be enacted as the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

I discovered this bit of Congressional theater when doing research for my recent talk at NECSS. Scott Gavura and I joined forces to present “Natural Disaster: Dietary Supplements.” Scott focused on pharmacology, while I talked about FDA regulation of dietary supplements (or lack thereof). Thanks to him, I now have a rudimentary knowledge of pharmacokinetics, the science behind how a drug or supplement works (or doesn’t) in the body. If you haven’t read his post from last week explaining this, and more, you should.

Reading the lengthy hearing transcript (well, ok, a lot of it) confirmed my suspicions that the fix was in even before the gavel went down to begin the hearing. What I had not realized was, at least according to some proponents of DSHEA, part of the deal was that consumers would have access to accurate information backing efficacy claims made for supplements and their safety. Nor had I realized that the weaknesses of DSHEA, which have become painfully obvious in the 20-plus years since the law was passed, were anticipated from the get-go and that Congress was well-informed of what they were. Finally, I was not previously aware of the provenance (shall we say) of the “experts” asked to testify at the behest of Sen. Hatch.

First, let’s set the stage on which this drama plays out, according to two excellent books on dietary supplements, Natural Causes and Vitamania. In 1991, Congress passed the Nutrition Education and Labeling Act (NELA). Most famously, NELA, for the first time, required that all foods bear the now-familiar nutrition label. It also required that any health claims made for foods be backed by “significant scientific agreement.” Rep. Henry Waxman and others wanted the same standard applied to dietary supplement health claims. After all, if food companies had to meet a certain standard to make health claims for, say, calcium in their products, why shouldn’t claims for the health benefits of calcium in dietary supplement form be held to the same standard? But the supplement industry knew it couldn’t survive under such stringent rules and Sen. Hatch made sure it didn’t happen. All parties agreed to let the FDA decide what standard should be required of supplement health claims and left it at that. (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Legal, Nutrition, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

What (if anything) does “natural” mean?

"When I use a word," said Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more, nor less." Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

“When I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more, nor less.”
Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking Glass”

What does the term “natural” mean on a label? Does it mean anything? Should it mean anything? Good questions. And complicated ones, judging from the list of questions the FDA needs your help in answering.

The FDA has resisted defining “natural” in food product labeling, including whether foods that are genetically engineered, or contain genetically engineered ingredients, can use the term. Back in 1991, the agency set out to issue regulations but abandoned the effort and has since held to an informal policy that “natural” means

nothing artificial or synthetic (including color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.

The only official legal requirement for using the description “natural” on a food label is that it not be misleading or false, which is forbidden by the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act of 1938. In that appetite-suppressing way of statutory language, “food” is defined by the Act as

articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, chewing gum, and articles for used for components of any such article.

For regulatory purposes, dietary supplements are also considered foods in most cases. (more…)

Posted in: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Legal, Nutrition, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Patient Beware: Off-label drug promotion by pharmaceutical companies

In truth, physicians are rarely this happy to see a drug rep.

In truth, physicians are rarely this happy to see a drug rep.

Pharmaceutical companies and their sales reps can distribute information, such as medical journal articles, about unapproved (“off-label“) uses of their drugs as long as they adhere to FDA guidelines. However, the FDA takes the position that this information must be distributed separately from information that is “promotional in nature,” i.e., for marketing purposes, a position that is now open to question.

Off-label promotion of a drug for a use that has not been approved by the FDA is, in the FDA’s view, a violation of the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDC Act). It is subject to criminal prosecution, because promoting a drug for new, unapproved uses is evidence of an intent that the drug be used before it has gone through the extensive process of clinical trials and a review of the evidence of safety and efficacy by a panel of experts, as required by law before a drug can be marketed. Thus, off-label promotion is seen as an end-run around the approval process that perverts the purpose of the FDC Act, which is to protect the public from ineffective and unsafe drugs.

Studies show that personal sales visits to physicians by pharmaceutical reps (called “detailing”) drives prescriptions in favor of the drugs being promoted. This is true even though physicians’ view of detailing ranges from neutral to highly negative, a “necessary evil,” and physicians are aware of potential conflicts of interest these visits precipitate.

While there are restrictions on off-label promotion, off-label prescribing by a physician is not illegal. Physician practice is regulated by the states and not within the jurisdiction of the FDA. In fact, off-label prescribing is considered both ethical and within the standard of care in appropriate circumstances. (I am currently taking a drug for an off-label use, and was informed of this, plus the risks and benefits, by my physician prior to his prescribing it.) It is also common, according to an article by law professors Ryan Abbot and Ian Ayers in the Duke Law Journal, which is well worth reading:

for the 3 leading drugs in each of the 15 leading drug classes, off-label use accounts for approximately 21% of prescriptions. Moreover, off-label uses may be the norm in some areas of practice, such as oncology, pain management, and palliative care, and in some patient populations, such as children, the elderly, and the severely ill. For example, about 80 percent of all drug prescriptions for children are off-label, and between 80 and 90 percent of all drug prescriptions for rare diseases are off-label. [Footnotes omitted.]


Posted in: Clinical Trials, Ethics, Legal, Pharmaceuticals, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

The consumer lab rat: More questions about supplement safety

Laboratory Rats
Do you take a vitamin or dietary supplement? Over half of all American adults do, making this a $30 billion dollar business. Many of us even take supplements in the absence of any clear medical or health need. I’m often told it’s a form of nutritional “insurance” or it’s being taken for some presumed beneficial effect – like Steven Novella outlined in yesterday’s post on antioxidants. We love the idea of a risk-free magic bullet that improves our health and wellness. Especially one that avoids what are presumed to be toxic, unnatural drugs. Supplements are marketed as safe, natural and effective, and there is no question that messaging has been effective.

I used to take supplements. For me it was multivitamins. But as I’ve taken a closer look at the evidence for supplementation, my personal behaviors changed. The primary reason is a lack of evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that vitamins offer any health benefits in the absence of deficiency. The balance of evidence suggests that routine multivitamins are unnecessary for most people. Vitamins should come from your food, not from supplements. More generally, looking at the broader category of supplements that range from probiotics to herbal remedies, there is little evidence to support most of them. With a few exceptions, the research done on dietary supplements is unconvincing and largely negative. If you don’t supplement, you don’t seem to be missing out on any tremendous health benefits.

Going beyond the lack of evidence, there’s an even more compelling need for consumers to be wary of them. The safety of supplements is increasingly being called into question. Evidence has emerged demonstrating that quality standards for supplements sold in many countries are erratic and unpredictable. The root cause seems to be regulatory systems that prioritize manufacturer interests ahead of consumer protection. With supplements, products are effectively being tested for safety after they are marketed, and the consumer is the unwitting research subject. (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Continued Battle over Homeopathy

Homeopathy - not medicine
The battle to rid modern scientific societies from the blatant and harmful pseudoscience of homeopathy continues. This past year has been overall a good one – in the US both the FDA and FTC decided to review their regulation of homeopathy. They have gathered their testimony and are now apparently reviewing everything. Their decisions on this topic are eagerly anticipated and could decide the fate of homeopathy for the next one or more generations.

Some success

In the UK the situation is also very positive. Their national health service is considering blacklisting homeopathy so that general practitioners cannot prescribe homeopathic products.

Success in the UK is largely due to The Good Thinking Society, founded by Simon Singh. They have been tirelessly campaigning against NHS coverage of homeopathy and are making steady progress. They are demonstrating that skeptical activism can be effective.

Likewise, SBM and the Society for SBM are having an impact in the US, mainly through persistent persuasive writing and being available as a resource to politicians, the press, and regulators. Members have personally consulted with the FDA, FTC, and staff of senators interested in the issue.


Posted in: Homeopathy

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 5 12345