By Robert Uram

On March 27, 2012, the comment period will close on a petition filed by the Center for Food Safety that calls for the FDA to issue new regulations requiring labeling of all foods produced using genetic engineering (GE). Docket No. FDA-2011-P-0723 (Filed October 12, 2011). Unlike many other developed countries – such as 15 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China – the U.S. has no laws requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods.Continue Reading Comment Period to Close On Petition to FDA for Mandatory Labeling of All Foods Produced Using Genetic Engineering

By Peter Reichertz

FDA has at last began formal implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 ("BPCI Act"), by announcing the proposal it will send to Congress to implement user fees for "generic" copies of biologics, called biosimilars in the BPCI Act. A biosimilar is a product approved under Section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act ("PHSA"); approvals are not Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FFDCA") approvals. Under the proposal, the user fees for biosimilars – including the product application fee, the annual product fee and the annual establishment fee – would be identical to the fees established for human drug products approved under Section 505(b) of the FFDCA with one significant difference.[1]Continue Reading FDA Announces Proposals for Biosimilars User Fees and Performance Review Goals

By Peter S. Reichertz

In a Federal Register notice of September 7, 2011,[1] the Office of Human Research Protection (“OHRP”) and the Food and Drug Administration have clarified that a waiver by an individual in an informed consent to compensation for use of his/her biospecimens is not “exculpatory”, and permissible, if worded properly. This Guidance – entitled “Guidance on Exculpatory Language in Informed Consent" – applies to research conducted for purposes of FDA approval, as well as research sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”).
 Continue Reading Rights to Compensation for use of Biospecimens: OHRP and FDA Clarify that Waivers of Rights in Informed Consents are not “Exculpatory”

By Peter S. Reichertz

The Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2011, that generic drug manufacturers cannot be sued for a failure to warn under state tort law, as long as their labeling complies with the FDA mandated labeling for the innovator drug product. While the Court had previously declined to find that federal regulation and approval of drug labeling of an innovator drug preempted state tort law in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 US 555 (2009), the Court ruled 5-4 in Pliva that the comprehensive scheme for approval of generic drugs under the 1984 Hatch-Waxman amendments required generic manufacturers to use the same labeling as the innovator brand name product. Since the law and FDA regulations, as conceded by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), preclude a generic company from obtaining approval of labeling different from the innovator brand name product, the Court held it was not possible for a generic manufacturer to comply with both federal and state law. As such, under the doctrine of impossibility, they ruled federal law was supreme and state tort laws on failure to warn were preempted. In so finding, they held that the issue of “impossibility” turns on whether the private party could independently do under federal law what state law requires of it. In this case, they held that generic manufacturers could only ask FDA to change labeling and could not do so without FDA approval, and thus could not act independently.
 Continue Reading Generic Drug Manufacturers And Failure To Warn: What duty is there after Pliva v. Mensing?

By Seth A. Mailhot and Allie Frumin

On June 14, 2011 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced new requirements for sunscreens and sunscreen-containing products currently sold over-the-counter. These changes are covered in a Federal Register notice to be published on June 17, 2011. The Final Rule will have a significant impact on producers of sunscreens and cosmetics and will result in changes to labeling, advertising and formulation of a vast array of products containing sunscreen and making sunscreen claims. In addition to the Final Rule, which will take effect for most producers on June 18, 2012, the FDA has also developed a Proposed Rule, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Draft Guidance for Industry regarding these products.
 Continue Reading Sunscreen in the Spotlight: FDA Illuminates New Sunscreen Regulations

By Peter S. Reichertz and Allie Frumin

On March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 09-1156. See our prior blog article from November 18, 2010.
 Continue Reading A MATRIXX Revolution, Part II: Supreme Court affirms Ninth Circuit’s holding that life science companies cannot rely on a statistical significance standard when deciding whether adverse event reports are material for the purpose of securities disclosures

By Peter S. Reichertz and Allie Frumin

January 19, FDA announced its plan to modify the 510(k) “approval” pathway, the most common review path for medical devices. Specifically, FDA released a report containing twenty-five actions it intends to take in 2011 to “improve” the review process. Importantly, however, no changes have yet been made to the process; FDA has just announced its plan of action of how it intends to address potential changes to the process.
 Continue Reading FDA Announces Its Plan For Changes to the 510(k) “Approval” Pathway

By Deborah M. Shelton

In the flurry of legislation passed by the 111th Congress in its final days, the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) cleared the Senate by unanimous voice vote on December 20, passed the House 215-144 the following day, and was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011 ("date of enactment"), immediately upon returning from his holiday vacation in Hawaii.
 Continue Reading President Obama Signs New Expansive Food Safety Law

By Deborah M. Shelton and Allie Frumin

On Tuesday December 7th, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling in Sottera, Inc. v. FDA, No. 10-5032, (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2010) holding that that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could not regulate as a medical device the electronic cigarettes (often referred to as “e-cigarettes”) at issue in that case. Instead, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that FDA’s authority over these e-cigarettes, as labeled, was limited to that over traditional tobacco products.
 Continue Reading E-CIGARETTES GET A “SMOKING” BREAK: D.C. Circuit Clarifies Scope of FDA’s Authority Over E-Cigarettes

By Peter S. Reichertz

In a prior article dated May 25, 2010, we advised of a new excise tax on branded pharmaceutical manufacturers. We indicated that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA") required the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to publish guidance "necessary to carry out the purpose" of the section in which the tax is included. The IRS has now issued that guidance ("the Guidance"). 

Continue Reading IRS Guidance On New Excise Tax On Branded Pharmaceutical Companies: Filing Due January 21, 2011