A U.S. District Court (DC) judge has in effect said that food and dietary supplement producers have a right under the free speech doctrine to talk about the science behind the product so long as they accurately represent that science. The Alliance for Natural Health won the victory and states:
The real reason it does not want any health claims for food or supplements is probably that it fears that this will create competition for approved drugs– and drugs pay the Agency’s (FDA) bills. This is a scandal that badly needs to be addressed.
Although the struggle is far from over, this court victory is an important milestone along the way to an eventual victory for free speech, uncensored science, and common sense.
This was a key federal case argued for ANH-USA and other plaintiffs by Jonathan Emord and the Emord law firm. It was a remarkable seventh victory for Emord over the FDA in the area of allowable health claims for food or supplements. Unless reversed on appeal, the decision restricts the Agency’s ability to place gag orders on the emerging science behind healthy foods and dietary supplements.
The case revolved around what are called qualified health claims. In a qualified health claim, the producer of a food or supplement tries to share the state of the science behind the product with the public. If the science is less than completely conclusive, usually the case with food or food related items, the claim is “qualified”.
The FDA has never liked qualified health claims. It wants food and supplements to be treated like drugs and forced to submit to the full FDA approval process in order to make any health claims.
Read the full story at Alliance for Natural Health