The Food and Drug Administration is coming down on the makers of certain dietary supplements whose products contain an ingredient that has yet to be proven safe.
Ten different manufacturers and distributors have received a warning letter from the safety agency because their products contain what’s known as dimethylamylamine, or DMAA. Also known as geranium extract, the makers of the products many times refer to the item as a natural stimulant, but the FDA takes issue with its presence.
They say that none of the companies have proved the safety of DMAA. Because the ingredient falls under the category of New Dietary Ingredient, the companies that include it must prove through various testing that DMAA is safe before they set out to market it. Doing otherwise takes the items out of compliance with FDA regulations, forcing the agency to classify the products as adulterated.
The FDA has stated that they have not acquired evidence that proves DMAA’s safety, and in fact have anecdotal data that shows the opposite. DMAA is known to narrow blood vessels, thus increasing blood pressure. Products containing DMAA have also prompted 42 complaints to the FDA, although it should be noted the ingredient was never proven to be the cause of the reported health issues.
The companies have 15 days to respond.
Take it from a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles like me: compliance with FDA regulations is essential to preserving safety. I hope as a Riverside personal injury lawyer that pains are taken to correct these violations, as to do otherwise could be dangerous for the citizens of this country.
The potential ability of the Food and Drug Administration to track individual drug items via serial numbers might be in danger.
Over the past ten years, the FDA has struggled to put together a “track and trace” plan that would put a unique serial number on every single package of medicine that’s brought to market. However, opponents of the mandate, which range from large drug companies to smaller pharmacies, think the system is cost-prohibitive.
The problem is that the debate can’t carry on for that much longer without a significant delay in implementation. If the FDA doesn’t propose one distinct plan by this September, then they’ll have to wait another five years until they can legally bring the issue back up with Congress.
Drug manufacturers and other opponents, who say it would cost upwards of $6 billion for pharmacies to fall in line with tracking every individual medicinal package, would rather see an expanded focus on keeping tabs on every lot of a drug instead of every single package.
California was the first state scheduled to switch over to an individual drug package tracking system, but healthcare lobbyists were able to delay the measure again and again. It’s currently not scheduled to take place until 2015. Estimates hint that the national system could be ready by 2020.
This is an important issue to a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles like me. I understand how important is is to track drugs. Such information could make issuing recalls and weeding out counterfeits easier. As a San Jose personal injury attorney, I hope that lawmakers are able to figure out how best to preserve safety.
The Food and Drug Administration wants consumers to know that it is doing what it can to ensure the safety of items produced from without as well as from within.
To that end, they have released their “Global Engagement Report.” This report seeks to explain to consumers and concerned individuals the many ways in which the FDA is expanding its purview to focus more on issues across the entire globe instead of just in America. The chief goal of the FDA hopes to address with this report is to guarantee that foods produced abroad meet the same safety standards that Americans have come to expect from domestic products.
The report details a number of strategies that the FDA is embarking upon to meet this goal. It talks about the agency’s establishment of offices in different continents acrosss the globe in an effort to learn about those locales’ regulations. They are helping foreign governments and safety agencies to improve on their regulatory procedures, as well as assisting them with an understanding of United States safety standards and the FDA’s own processes.
The FDA points out an increase of food importation by the United States by 10% every year for the past six years as a reason why this measure is so important.
I firmly believe as a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles that food safety is vital to preserving public health. With imports becoming more and more commonplace, I’m glad to see the FDA doing something to maintain globally the standards we expect locally. It’s my hope as a San Jose personal injury attorney that their efforts save lives.
Four people have been indicted for practices which federal authorities say endangered public safety.
The indictment issued yesterday alleges that owners, operators, and employees of certain cheese companies were purposely selling a cheese product that failed to meet the standards of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The four people are being accused of taking cheese returned by customers because of the presence of mold and then washing off the visible traces of mold before reselling it to other consumers. Tests of the cheese allegedly proved the presence of E. coli and salmonella, as well as other bacteria.
The persons indicted are facing conspiracy charges and committing violations against food safety law. The moldy and fungal cheese was distributed under the name Queso Cincho de Guerrero. This cheese was imported by a company based out of Illinois and then distributed across the country by a Wisconsin company. Each of those companies is owned by one of the indicted parties.
The cheese, which came in 35 and 40 pound wheels, was recalled in 2007. Until that point, it had been available for purchase in Michigan, Illinois, Georgia, Texas, and Indiana. Although 110,000 pounds of the compromised cheese was shipped across the country in 2007, the indictment doesn’t reference any reports of people becoming ill.
As a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, I’m used to seeing recalls that come about because of a simple error, but if these charges are proven true, then it demonstrates a certain willingness to purposely imperil public safety. I hope as a Riverside personal injury attorney that no other companies out there are utilizing these kinds of business practices.
Millions upon millions of shipments of foreign goods arrive in the United States through busy ports every year. But do we have enough personnel available to make sure that what’s being imported into our country is actually safe for our citizens?
The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration thinks that we could do a little better. Following a tour of the Port of Savannah, this top official has stated that she believes more inspectors are needed to properly police the goods coming into the country.
Currently the busy port, which took in almost 3 million containers filled with cargo last year, only has four inspectors. These persons are responsible for sifting through drugs, cosmetics, fruits, vegetables, and seafood to make sure that these goods are fit for consumption. The Commissioner would like to see the number of inspectors double.
That’s not to say that the FDA is in this alone. In fact, the lion’s share of cargo inspections across the country are conducted by United States Customs and Border Protection.
A member of the House of Representatives joined the Commissioner for the tour.
As a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, I applaud efforts to increase the FDA’s ability to make sure our products are safe. Maybe just a few extra hands on deck can prevent widespread safety defects. Such is my hope as a Bakersfield personal injury attorney.
Detection of the presence of undeclared milk allergens in 16 ounce packs of “Pan de Torta” has forced Los Olivos, a company based out of Farmingdale, New York, to recall said product with a lot number of 50912.
The item, which comes in a plastic package, was distributed through Hicksville-based Queso la Ricura to the states of New York and New Jersey. Numerous other distributors were responsible for its availability across the rest of the country.
The milk allergens, which were not listed on the label, were discovered by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors personnel conducting basic testing. Workers with the Food Laboratory confirmed their findings. It’s possible that someone could have an intense reaction if they consume the product but are allergic to milk. Although no incidences of a severe allergic reaction in conjunction with consumption of the product have been reported, purchasers are nevertheless being advised to return the item to the place where it was purchased for a full refund.
As a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, I’m sorry to once again see a product not properly labeled. This might seem like a small thing to some, but such faulty labeling could have serious health consequences to those with allergies. It’s my hope as a Fresno personal injury attorney that the issue gets taken care of before anyone has to suffer any ill effects.
Another recall announcement is making its rounds through the various media outlets, this time concerning the potential presence of a nut allergen in a chocolate drink.
The specific item in question is called the Odwalla Chocolate Protein Monster beverage. Odwalla produced the item, which was available across the country at various retail outlets, although one specific version came in a variety pack that was only available at Costco. The recall encompasses those beverages sold in the past seven weeks and have an expiration on or before May 23, 2012.
At issue are reports that users have suffered allergic reactions after drinking the beverage. The four people that made the reports have said that they do not have a soy or milk allergy, but that they are allergic to tree nuts and/or peanuts.
The Food and Drug Administration and Odwalla are reportedly trying to get to the bottom of the possible allergen contamination. The plant where the drink is manufactured has no nut products in its lineup, and the beverage itself does not contain nuts.
As a precaution, the company has advised those with nut allergies to discontinue use of the drink with the mentioned expiration dates. They can return the item for a refund.
As a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, I applaud when a company acts in a way that many would consider overly cautious. It’s better to issue a recall and maintain safety than have someone get hurt. That’s my opinion, anyway, as a San Diego personal injury lawyer.
A new report sheds a positive light on the number of product recalls that have to be initiated, but questions still remain.
Kids in Danger, a group that advocates for safety on behalf of consumers, has released a report detailing how in 2011 the number of children’s products recalled dropped by nearly 25%. This might seem like great news, but some are worried that this doesn’t accurately reflect a drop in unsafe products. Such a drop could indeed be indicative of a decreased danger, but it might also represent a lower number of successful investigations and subsequent recalls on behalf of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who Kids in Danger says is too secretive with their process. If this latter reason is true, it could mean that unsafe products have not in fact decreased.
What hasn’t changed is the number of recalled products that actually get taken back or corrected. USAToday estimates that 15 to 30% of defective products are all that get returned. The rest remains on the market with consumers unaware of the danger.
121 recalled products from 2011 could be considered as intended for use by children. One seemingly positive occurrence is a decrease in drop side crib and lead contamination-based recalls. This can likely be attributed to heightened standards for such products enacted by the federal government.
As a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, I think that a decrease in recalls is great news, and I hope it indicates companies are becoming more aware of safety. It does frighten me that an overwhelming majority of recalled products do not get returned or destroyed, which is why I try to do my part to spread the word as a Fresno personal injury attorney.
Even as studies continue to be carried out and hypotheses tested, the Food and Drug Administration has come out and said that they can find no evidence that BPA would pose a danger to humans.
This issue has risen to the fore in recent months and years, with consumer advocates pointing to animal studies that they say showed an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and reproductive issues when animals were exposed to Bisphenol A. The FDA, however, has said that after reviewing studies, they can find nothing that would suggest this damage would carry over to people.
BPA has been used to make plastics and small levels of it may be found in cans and plastic bottles. As a result, trace amounts of BPA can be transferred to food and drink. Hundreds of studies have been conducted testing whether this could be dangerous, but the FDA has said they have looked into these studies and concluded that a diet with these trace amounts of BPA would not pose a risk.
The FDA goes even further than that, as a matter of fact, taking to task a previous claim that infants are exposed through an inordinate amount of BPA in their foods. They have instead said that in babies and adults alike, BPA gets metabolized and ejected from the body.
As a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, I’ve seen numerous people affected by dangerous chemicals. No matter what the decision is on BPA, I will be paying attention as a San Francisco personal injury lawyer to examinations of all chemicals by the FDA and consumer advocates.
Another recall has been announced, this one potentially affecting that portion of the population that has asthma.
Strong America Ltd., the makers of the Golden Smell brand, has announced the recall of that brand’s six ounce Dried Potato product that comes in plastic packaging. The item was manufactured in China and sold in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.
The issue has come about because the item contains sulfites, despite the fact that the label does not say as much. Food inspectors from the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets discovered that the product contains 36 milligrams per serving. This is a danger, as it’s thought that only 10 milligrams of the substance can create a severe reaction in those with asthma. This reaction generally involves anaphylactic shock.
Thankfully, no illnesses have been brought to the attention of the company as of yet. Concerned customers have been advised to return the item to the store from which it was purchased. A full refund will be issued at that time. Consumers are also urged to call the company should they have any questions or concerns.
As a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, I know how serious a recall of this nature can be. Although a large swath of the population may not comprehend the danger that the presence of one simple ingredient can pose, those who would be adversely affected by these sulfites certainly understand. It’s my hope as a Riverside personal injury lawyer that no one gets hurt in accordance with this item.