Food and drug law journal (FOOD DRUG LAW J )

Publisher: Food and Drug Law Institute (U.S.)

Description

  • Impact factor
    0.37
    Show impact factor history
     
    Impact factor
  • 5-year impact
    0.39
  • Cited half-life
    7.60
  • Immediacy index
    0.05
  • Eigenfactor
    0.00
  • Article influence
    0.13
  • Website
    Food and Drug Law Journal website
  • Other titles
    Food and drug law journal
  • ISSN
    1064-590X
  • OCLC
    26135015
  • Material type
    Periodical, Internet resource
  • Document type
    Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regulatory bodies weighing market approval for novel medical devices must balance the benefits and potential hazards carefully. We performed a legal and policy review of appraoches in the US, EU, Japan, and China to device regulation with a focus on postmarket surveillance. These markets share broad features such as a heavy reliance on passive adverse event collection, reflected by growing enthusiasm for more active and dynamic mechanisms such as unique device identification. More immediately, US and EU systems might benefit from scheduled, compulsory, and consequential re-examination of select devices, as is done in Japan and China, in order to strengthen post-market protection of patients and bolster public health.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2014; 69(1):1-23, i.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Social media marketing is the next frontier for direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical products, but represents an unchartered territory for regulatory action. With explosive growth in the use of social media, along with pharmaceutical companies' increasing adeptness at taking advantage of opportunities for social media marketing, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) faces an urgent need to develop its own capacities to monitor and engage with social media marketing. In response to potential FDA action, pharmaceutical companies' marketing, regulatory compliance and legal staffs must work closely to design initiatives that are sensitive to FDA concerns. This article will address the current status of FDA regulations on social media advertising, their historical origins, challenges to implementation, and their likely future direction.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2014; 69(1):39-51, ii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As obesity rates continue to rise in the United States, both physicians and patients have demanded more safe and effective drug treatment options. However, following the fen-phen/Redux and sibutramine failures, the FDA has been hesitant to approve any anti-obesity drugs, despite the magnitude of the epidemic. Some have argued that these public embarrassments have led the FDA to overestimate the risks and underestimate the benefits when deciding whether to approve new anti-obesity drugs. On June 27, 2012, the FDA approved Belviq for chronic weight management, making it the first anti-obesity drug approved by the FDA in thirteen years. Less than one month later, the FDA approved Qsymia for the treatment of obesity. Both drugs had been denied FDA approval less than two years earlier. In this paper, I will first review the obesity crisis and discuss the high-profile market withdrawals of fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, and sibutramine. Second, I will explain the FDA's drug approval process with a focus on the FDA's risk/benefit calculus. Third, I will compare the FDA's risk/benefit analysis for Qsymia and Belviq in 2010 with the agency's risk/benefit analysis in 2012 to determine what caused the agency to grant approval in 2012 while denying it in 2010. Finally, I will analyze what these drug approvals may mean for the future of other anti-obesity drugs.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2014; 69(1):87-111, ii-iii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A number of states have enacted statutes that provide protection to drug manufacturers in product liability actions. Additionally, several of these states have enacted "fraud-on-the-FDA" statutory provisions, which remove statutory protection afforded to drug manufacturers in product liability actions if plaintiffs can provide evidence that the drug manufacturer made misrepresentations to the FDA during the process of obtaining marketing approval for the drug. Currently, the federal circuits are in disagreement over whether these state "fraud-on-the-FDA" statutes should be federally preempted. This issue warrants resolution for drug manufacturers, private citizens, and state legislatures. This Comment will discuss the history and role of the FDA's authority in drug and medical device regulation; federal preemption generally and the Supreme Court's decisions that considered whether state law failure to warn claims are federally preempted in the context of drugs and medical devices; the Supreme Court's decision in Buckman v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee, where the Court held that claims that a medical device manufacturer made fraudulent representations to the FDA were federally preempted because such claims interfered with the relationship between the FDA and the entities it regulated, state fraud-on-the-FDA statutory provisions, and the existing circuit split regarding whether those statutes should be federally preempted; the potential resolutions to the circuit split; and will conclude and advocate that the Supreme Court's Buckman holding be applied to federally preempt state fraud-on-the-FDA statutes because such statutes involve the relationship between a federal agency and the entity it regulates and thus undermine the FDA's authority.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2014; 69(1):113-36, iii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended that the Food and Drug Administration modify the generally recognized as safe status of sodium by setting gradually decreasing limits on sodium amounts allowed in processed and prepared foods. Establishing limits on sodium uses would lead to a decrease in sodium intake, which, on average, far exceeds dietary recommendations. This article discusses the historical and regulatory context surrounding the IOM's recommendation, analyzes its potential, offers various strategies for implementing it, and concludes that the IOM's recommendation is likely the best tool currently available to achieve widespread sodium reductions in the food supply.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2014; 69(1):53-85, ii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") registration is not only a necessity, but also an invaluable commodity for doctors, pharmacists, hospitals and drug wholesalers who prescribe, stock, and distribute controlled substances. While the DEA may only suspend a registration by issuing an immediate suspension order ("ISO) after an ex parte finding of "imminent danger to the public health or safety," the law fails to explicitly protect the registrant by way of a post-suspension hearing on the ISO, despite the registrant's constitutionally protected property interest in the registration. A registrant has only two procedural options--which are often unsuccessful--to challenge the ISO: endure a long and arduous administrative review proceeding or petition the court for a "not-so-easily proven" injunction, all the while the suspension remains in effect and the controlled substance business operations cease. Accordingly, a suspension of the registration may be certain death to doctors and pharmacists without the financial means to operate the business in the absence of the registration. Because the DEA registration is a constitutionally-protected interest, there is a better way to challenge the suspension. The Supreme Court has held that once a license is issued, the continued possession of it is essential to the registrant's livelihood. Therefore suspension or revocation of such a protected interest requires due process. Due-process hearings, while varied, will provide the necessary avenues of review to provide a fair review of the justification of the suspension and its continuance, i.e., whether there truly is imminent danger to public health or safety and whether the suspension is overbroad and should be limited. To date, this thesis remains to be tested and awaits a petitioner with a justiciable claim and the financial resources to challenge the DEA in court. But in the field of DEA ISO challenges, it is time for a new tact!
    Food and drug law journal 01/2014; 69(1):25-38, i.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: FDA transparency effort continued, including the Secretary's adopting eight measures to improve access to Agency information and activities. A continuing problem was shortages of prescription drugs, which probably was enhanced by increased manufacturing recalls. FDA issued more device Guidances for regulatory clarity. Enforcement involving drugs and devices increased, including GMP and GLP enforcement and surveillance of internet claims. The Supreme Court decided generic drug manufacturers may cause the FDA to revise incorrectly listed use codes, and pharmaceutical detailers may not receive overtime payments. FDA initiated implementation of the Food Safety and Modernization Act, including two pilot tracking systems for supply chain tracing and to determine how quickly data can be gathered. The Agency issued guidance for new dietary supplements. FDA failed to impose graphic labeling requirements on the tobacco industry, but established it can regulate electronic cigarettes as tobacco. The Agency issued guidelines for the use of nanomaterials in cosmetics, and reviewed the effectiveness of sunscreen products. FDA is being given more authority over larger areas of the U.S. economy, but its resources are not increased proportionately. The pharmaceutical industry made major payments for alleged violations of the Drug Rebate Statute, Anti-Kickback Statute, Wholesale Price and Off-Label Use prohibitions. The government continues using the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine to make company managers responsible for corporate conduct about which they had no knowledge. Companies should have a robust compliance program in effect. The FTC and the SEC continue their oversight activities, including SEC's enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The defense of product liability litigation continues grappling with federal preemption of state laws.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(1):1-51, i.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: FDA's proposed graphic warning labels for cigarette packages have been scrutinized for potentially violating the First Amendment's free speech clause. This article addresses the distinction between the commercial speech and compelled speech doctrines and their applicability in analyzing the constitutionality of the labels. The government's position is that the labels evoke an emotional response and educate consumers, while tobacco companies argue that the labels forcibly promote the government's message. Two federal appellate courts, applying different legal standards, have arrived at different conclusions. This article advocates that the Supreme Court, if faced with review of the labels, should apply strict scrutiny and declare the labels unconstitutional.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(4):329-56, i.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: China has significant gaps and weaknesses in its regulatory oversight of the off-label use of drugs. As in the United States, the off-label prescribing of drugs is not prohibited in China if there is a sound scientific basis. Physicians are allowed to prescribe off-label drugs based on their medical judgment if they follow certain requirements. There is some constraint on the right to prescribe by the imposition of malpractice liability if patients are harmed from improper off-label prescribing. However, damages awarded to successful plaintiffs are usually insignificant compared to malpractice damage awards in the U.S. Advertisement of off-label use is prohibited in China. All drug advertisements in China are subject to pre-approval, and must be based on information included in the approved package insert. However, the term "advertisement" is poorly defined. As a result, non-advertisement promotion of drugs for on-label or off-label use exist in a unregulated gray area. To better address the problem of inappropriate off-label promotion and use, China should (i) regulate both drug advertisements and non-advertisement promotion under a standard requiring off-label use to have a sound scientific basis, (ii) introduce harsher regulatory penalties, and (iii) increase compensation available for victims of medical malpractice. Such reform would not only discourage improper off-label use by introducing penalties (or increasing existing penalties) for improper promotion, but would also provide reasonable compensation for victims harmed by off-label use.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(2):189-200, ii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The FDA approved Depo-Provera, an injectable contraceptive, in 1992 on the condition that its manufacturer conduct a post-approval study on the risk ofosteoporosis. Then in 2004, the agency revised the drug's labeling to include a boxed (i.e. Black Box) Warning on the risk ofosteoporosis. This article will analyze the FDA's Depo-Provera approval and label revision process: the agency's acceptance of Upjohn's New Drug Application, its Fertility and Maternal Health Advisory Committee's review of the human clinical studies and approval recommendation, its marketing approval of Depo-Provera, and its 2004 drug labeling revision. Then the article will analyze the post-2004 products liability litigation by women who claimed to have been injured by their use of the drug. None of the cases have survived the manufacturer's summary judgment motions, because the women have been unable to establish by expert and physician evidence that the FDA-approved labeling was inadequate to inform their physicians of the risk of osteoporosis, that the inadequate warnings caused their osteoporosis or osteopenia, and that these are compensable injuries. As a result, the manufacturer has been able to use the FDA labeling, state products liability law, and the learned intermediary doctrine to avoid liability. The conclusion will consider the lessons of these products liability cases for other women who have received Depo-Provera and suffered bone mineral density loss.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(2):115-35, i.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biotechnology has evolved beyond the realm of child's guess-and-check to a precise science, and now promises to help solve some of the globe's most pressing challenges, including food insecurity and environmental degradation. Beyond this, biotechnology also represents an important part of the American intellectual property landscape. Unlike transgenic plants, no transgenic animals have yet to reach the American dinner table, despite the fact that transgenic animals offer cheap, healthy, and an environmentally friendly source of protein. AquaBounty's AquAdvantage Salmon, which counts itself among the most heavily regulated product in the Food and Drug Administration's history, suffers greatly from negative stigma from special interest groups and the media. This article will examine the important role of biotechnology in America's intellectual property market, the regulation of the AquAdvantage Salmon, and transgenic animal products more generally, before FDA, as well as some of misinformation about AquAdvantage that has been presented to the American public. This article additionally advocates for FDA to adopt a more proactive public outreach role in explaining to the American public, in terms accessible to the layperson, what a transgenic animal product is, how FDA regulates transgenic animal products, and why FDA feels these products are safe for human consumption. In doing so, this article hopes to establish that FDA is best suited to provide the American public with objective facts surrounding this highly stigmatized product.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(3):281-307, ii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since 2004, 25 states have passed Commonsense Consumption Acts (CCAs) to shield the food industry from civil liability for claims arising from obesity-related health harms. These laws continue to be introduced. CCAs have generally been discussed in terms of "tort reform." For this article, we conducted a systematic analysis of the content of all 25 state laws and found that the potential impact of CCAs goes well beyond obesity-related tort reform to limits on state Attorney General (AGs) authority and significant reforms to future statutory consumer protection claims by AGs, individuals and classes of consumers. Moreover, every CCA state had pre-existing legal protections against frivolous litigation-greatly undercutting arguments made by CCA proponents.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(3):229-39, i.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breakthrough medical tools and technologies are rapidly becoming available in countries across the world, but cannot be purchased in the United States, where these innovative products still await FDA approval. The artificial pancreas is a prime example of such medical technologies, as one of these device systems has been available in over 40 countries outside of the United States for more than 3 years. The term "artificial pancreas" refers to any one of a group of closed-loop device systems designed to protect type 1 diabetics against dangerous diabetes episodes, while also reducing the risk of diabetes-related complications by enabling tighter glycemic control. The following paper will provide an overview of diabetes, a brief history of diabetes management, the technological challenges of creating a fully functional closed-loop diabetes management system, and the role of FDA in the development of the artificial pancreas.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(1):53-76, i.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authority of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prohibit off-label promotion of drug products suffered another serious setback in United States v. Caronia. Viewing a legal system where physicians can prescribe prescription pharmaceuticals for unapproved uses legally in their practice of medicine, the Federal appeals court affirmed the commercial free speech rights of manufacturers to use truthful, non-misleading speech about lawfully marketed products. As a result of this case, and others upon which the decision is based, FDA is likely to challenge manufacturer promotion more carefully, and only if it can demonstrate that claims are not truthful, but are false or misleading, or otherwise deprive the prescriber of adequate directions for use.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(2):201-16, iii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of FDA's most powerful enforcement tools is strict liability criminal prosecution of corporate officers under the Park Doctrine. Recent comments by high-ranking FDA officials about using this power more aggressively and recent cases apparently making good on this promise have spurred commentators to call for the doctrine's demise. Critics argue that strict liability for corporate officers violates fundamental notions of fairness and the appropriate relationship between guilt and liability in criminal law. As a response to these critics, this article argues that the Park Doctrine continues to serve a valuable purpose in deterring conduct that endangers the public health and that structural, political, and practical limitations on FDA's use of Park prosecutions have been, and will continue to be, effective protections against the abuses critics fear. This article proposes a model for understanding why and how FDA uses its prosecutorial powers and assesses a sample of recent high-profile prosecutions under this model to argue that the modern "escalation" of Park prosecutions is in fact a continuation of FDA's historical policy.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(2):137-88, i.
  • Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(4):449-65.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although human subject research is regulated by federal agencies, the differences between research and innovative clinical practice are often blurred. Research and innovative practices share the similar goals of obtaining additional knowledge and improving medical treatment. Research, however, is more specifically defined as "a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." Aprocedure consistent with this definition is subject to distinct federal regulations and other ethical procedural safeguards. When unregulated innovative practices, not neatly fitting within this definition of research, are first implemented, safeguards do not necessarily exist because use of these procedures is primarily guided by individual physician judgment. Recognizing that the application of innovative advancements in ART may very well benefit numerous prospective infertile patients and may initially appear to be safe and effective, these new and novel procedures may be associated with yet unknown long-term risks and safety concerns unless more formal scientific study is conducted to support efficacy and safety.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(2):177-88, ii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), amended in 1990 by the Nutrition Education and Labeling Act ("NLEA"), established a national framework for the administration and promulgation of uniform food labeling standards. Specifically, the NLEA created affirmative obligations for the food--requiring detailed disclosure of food content and strict adherence to regulations governing the use of health and nutritional claims on food packaging. To accomplish these goals, Congress tasked the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") with the sole responsibility of the enforcement of these new requirements. Under the statutory framework of the FDCA, the United States Supreme Court ("Court") has held that there is no private right of action, of which extended to the enforcement of NLEA standards. This interpretation has left individuals with no federal outlet for relief in the enforcement of federal food labeling standards. Adherence to this interpretation is especially concerning when the FDA currently faces exponential growth in administrative responsibilities while simultaneously experiencing employment reduction, a $206 million "Sequester," and a recent government-wide shutdown. As a result, the American people are left to depend on an Agency that is struggling with drastic resource reduction while being accountable for ever increasing enforcement responsibilities. To ensure consumer protection, this Article argues that Congress should amend the FDCA to include a citizen suit provision in order to provide individuals with a right of private action for the enforcement of NLEA standards. Borrowing from the successes realized under similar citizen suit provisions found in environmental legislation, this Article argues that a citizen suit provision is amendable to the FDCA and would relieve fiscal pressures, strengthen the current enforcement framework of the FDCA, encourage more robust enforcement by the FDA and states, and ensure uniform interpretation of NLEA standards.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(4):401-22, i-ii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Admin. discussed whether the FDA's promulgation of graphic images violated tobacco companies' First Amendment rights. While the tobacco companies contested the graphic images, the tobacco companies did not contest the promulgation of nine textual statements about the adverse effects of cigarettes. This uncontested mandate opens a door for the FDA to further expand its regulatory scheme. If the FDA can mandate textual statements about the adverse effects of cigarettes, can the FDA mandate textual statements about the adverse effects of sugar to combat the obesity crisis? This Article presents three textual statements about the adverse effects of sugar, to define the line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of compelled commercial speech under Central Hudson. Establishing this line ensures that the commercial speech doctrine does not deny the FDA from its authority to provide consumers with accurate information. While three textual statements are presented, this Article advocates that one of the textual statements is likely to serve as the best solution to the obesity crisis. The chosen textual statement serves as an effective solution because it presents meaningful information to the consumers enabling consumers to make healthful decisions about their food and encourages manufacturers to modify their products.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(3):309-27, ii-iii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rapidly evolving realm of modern commerce strains traditional regulatory paradigms. This paper traces the historical evolution of FDA crisis-response regulation and provides examples of ways in which the definitions and procedures resulting from that past continue to be challenged by new products as market entrants, some in good faith and others not, take actions that create disconnects between actual product and marketing controls and those that consumers might expect. The paper then explores some of the techniques used by other federal agencies that have faced similar challenges in environments characterized by rapid innovation, and draws from this analysis suggestions for improvement of the FDA's warning letter system.
    Food and drug law journal 01/2013; 68(4):357-99, i.