Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

"It's the FDA. We're here to burn your books."

Article Abstract:

Oscar Rodes was shocked to discover that his compliance with the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with regards to the approval of his stevia products as a dietary supplement was not enough. The stevia products, which are used as substitute for sugar, were approved as dietary supplements but not as food additives. Rodes' cookbooks, which show how to use the stevia products, were therefore considered by the FDA as violative of the law. The FDA wanted to burn the cookbooks but withdrew their objection after First Amendment lawyer Jonathan Emord filed a petition.

Author: Copulos, Milt
Publisher: Cato Institute
Publication Name: Regulation
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0147-0590
Year: 1998
Vitamin, Nutrient & Hematinic Preps, Food Additives, All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Usage, Powers and duties, Dietary supplements, Stevia

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Free speech vs. the FDA: direct-to-consumer ads

Article Abstract:

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) activities against direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisements about prescription drugs is a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment or right to free speech. A number of court cases have supported the right to commercial speech. However, its seems that FDA officials feel that the precedents will not be applied against their actions against DTC ads for prescription drugs because of the danger posed by such ads. They argue that people may ask for drugs which they do not need.

Author: Goldberg, Robert M.
Publisher: Cato Institute
Publication Name: Regulation
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0147-0590
Year: 1998
Ethical Preparations, Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors, Advertising Regulation, Drugs, Freedom of speech, Advertising, Advertising law

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Breaking up the FDA's medical information monopoly

Article Abstract:

The FDA's broad powers has given it a virtual monopoly on medical information. Congress has already started to question the FDA's mandate because of this monopoly. However, many congressmen and the public in general remain unconvinced about the adverse effects that the FDA's broad powers exert on the pharmaceutical industry, on doctors and patients. Congress and the public must be informed about the FDA's inner workings if proposals to reform the agency are to succeed.

Author: Goldberg, Robert M.
Publisher: Cato Institute
Publication Name: Regulation
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0147-0590
Year: 1995
Reports, Deregulation, United States. Congress

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Laws, regulations and rules, United States. Food and Drug Administration
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Ad limits get harder to enact; high court speech rulings are inconsistent. Asbestos claims hang over one of the '80s big buyouts
  • Abstracts: Helms to Cuba: see you in court; law would let U.S. citizens sue those who use confiscated assets
  • Abstracts: Is the camel's nose in the social security tent? Where are the savings? Where's the growth?
  • Abstracts: Boy-killer says he can pick his sentence: convicted for the 1955 slaying of three boys, his lawyers say the lenient choice applies
  • Abstracts: A tangled web: IOLTA and the banks. Lessons from the savings and loan debacle: the case for further financial deregulation
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.