Welcome

Welcome to my Blog. I mostly re post articles that i find interesting on the web. After the article you will find a link that leads you to the original one.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

FDA Does Spit-Take Over Mouthwash Labels Saying They Fight Gum Disease

FDA Does Spit-Take Over Mouthwash Labels Saying They Fight Gum Disease: "


The FDA just smacked the taste out of the mouths of Johnson & Johnson, Walgreens and CVS over advertising that their mouthwash fights gum disease, without having science to prove it.



The swig makers routinely label their products as fighting plaque and gum disease, but there is no evidence to support that their active ingredient, good ol' fluoride, actually does. Cavities, sure, but not gingivitis.



Here is the letter the warning letter the FDA sent Johnson & Johnson:

Dear Mr. Bowden:



This letter is in reference to the Listerine Total Care Anticavity Mouthwash distributed by your firm. The label for this product makes the following claims: 'Strengthens Teeth, Restores Minerals to Enamel, Fights Unsightly Plaque Above the Gum Line, Helps Prevent Cavities, Kills Bad Breath Germs, and Freshens Breath.'



Based on these labeled claims 'Fights Unsightly Plaque Above the Gum Line' and 'Prevents Cavities,' Listerine Total Care Anticavity Mouthwash is a drug as defined in section 201(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) (21 U.S.C. § 321(g)) because the product is intended for use in preventing or mitigating disease, or to affect the structure or function of the body, by preventing cavities and removing plaque. Sodium fluoride 0.0221% (0.01% w/v fluoride ion) for the purpose of 'Anticavity' is the sole active ingredient listed for this product. This product is subject to the Final sole active ingredient listed for this product. This product is subject to the Final Monograph for Anticaries Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Use, 21 CFR Part 355, which covers the product's disease claim of helping 'prevent cavities,' and includes this active ingredient.



However, another claim on the label of Listerine Total Care Anticavity Mouthwash is 'Fights Unsightly Plaque Above the Gum Line.' This statement represents that the product fights plaque, a well-known precursor to gum disease, including gingivitis. Antiplaque/antigingivitis claims are not covered by the Anticaries Final Monograph. Such antiplaque/antigingivitis claims are, however, addressed in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for Oral Healthcare Products for antigingivitis/antiplaque (68 Fed. Reg. 32232 (May 29, 2003)). In that ANPR, the agency identified active ingredients under consideration for inclusion in an antigingivitis/antiplaque monograph; however, sodium fluoride is not among them.



Thus, no mouthwash with sodium fluoride as the active ingredient has been included or proposed for inclusion in any monograph for the antiplaque/antigingivitis indications claimed for Listerine Total Anti-cavity Mouthwash; that ingredient is not included among those under evaluation in the ANPR for antiplaque/antigingivitis drug products, nor does the anticaries monograph at 21 CFR part 355, which does include the active ingredient of sodium fluoride, include antiplaque claims as recognized claims. As formulated and labeled, Listerine Total Anticavity Mouthwash is not generally recognized as safe and effective for the antiplaque indications in its labeling, and it is, therefore, a new drug under section 201(P) of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 321 (P)). Under section 505(a) of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(a)), a new drug may not be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved application. The marketing of Listerine Total Anticavity Mouthwash without an FDA-approved application violates this provision of the Act.



In addition, the front panel of your product states the product name: 'Listerine Total Care Anticavity Mouthwash.' The violative claims described in the above paragraphs, combined with the appearance of the 'Total Care' name, suggests that the product is comprehensive in function, and will provide benefits, including antigingivitis and antiplaque benefits. We are not aware of any support for the antiplaque/antigingivitis claims or other statements suggesting that the product is comprehensive in function, providing benefits beyond those related to prevention of cavities. Thus, the product's labeling claim that it will provide all of the benefits listed, is misleading and accordingly makes it misbranded within the meaning of section 502(a) of the Act. (21 U.S.C. §352(a)).



The violations cited in this letter are not an all-inclusive list of deficiencies. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of these violations and for preventing their recurrence and the occurrence of other violations. You are to assure that your firm complies with all requirements of federal law and FDA regulations.



You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice, including, without limitation, seizure and injunction. Other federal agencies may take this Warning Letter into account when considering the award of contracts.



We note additionally that your principal display panel (PDP) describes your product as 'Sodium Fluoride and Acidulated Phosphate Topical Solution.' The Drug Facts panel lists the sole active ingredient as 'Sodium fluoride 0.0221% (0.01% fluoride ion).' These representations are inconsistent. Based on the information in your Drug Facts panel, it appears that the PDP should refer to either 'Sodium Fluoride Acidulated Phosphate Solution' or just 'Sodium Fluoride Solution.' The Sodium fluoride listed in the drug facts panel should be listed at 0.02%; not 0.0221 %.



Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, please notify this office in writing of the specific steps that you have taken to correct the referenced violations. Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation. If you cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which you will complete the correction. Your reply should be addressed to Robert J. Maffei, Compliance Officer, at the above address.You can also read the ones to Walgreens and CVS, though they share a lot of the same language.



There are other, cheaper ways to fight plaque buildup and prevent gum disease, like:



* brush twice a day

* brush your tongue

* floss

* avoid sugar and eat a balanced, nutritious diet



FDA warns three companies to stop making unproven claims on mouth rinses [FDA via NPR]

"

Hide Lunch From Office Thieves In Healthy Meal Boxes

Hide Lunch From Office Thieves In Healthy Meal Boxes: "


Here's a potentially even better idea for protecting your lunch from thieves in the office than the fake moldy ziploc bags. Commenter Snaptastic suggests that you stash it inside a box of 'healthy,' i.e. 'gross,' food like a Weight Watchers, or, as commenter Murph1908 recommended, a Hot Pockets.



(We don't really need to go into why Hot Pockets are Satan bullets, do we?)



See, the problem with the first idea is that coworkers, whether thieves or not thieves, might toss out your lunch thinking it's actually moldy, leaving you just as sans lunch as if it were stolen. With this method, they'll avoid your lunch entirely. But what if they're really super hungry and try to jack your lunch anyway? Then you put your sandwich inside a fake moldy bag, inside a Weight Watchers box.



PREVIOUSLY

Anti-Theft Lunch Bags Make Thieves Think Your Sandwich Is Moldy

"

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Star Wars flicks to see 3D re-release, starting with Episode 1 in 2012

Star Wars flicks to see 3D re-release, starting with Episode 1 in 2012: "

The Star Wars series hasn't even hit Blu-ray yet, but The Hollywood Reporter reports sources saying George Lucas definitely intends to refill his money pit in 2012 by bringing out the movies, one each year, in 3D. Unfortunately that means even if you're optimistically expecting a well done 3D conversion process Episode IV is at least five years away since the plan is to release the movies in numerical order. According to the sources, even after demoing converted 3D footage of the movies in the past, Lucas was moved to greenlight the process after experiencing Avatar and realizing that by the time the movies hit theaters, and eventually homes, there will be more than enough capable screens to watch them on. Of course, all could be forgiven if this meant there were enough petty cash floating around to convince Lucas it's time to restore and rerelease the original editions on Blu-ray, but we're not holding our breath.

Star Wars flicks to see 3D re-release, starting with Episode 1 in 2012 originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:24:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | sourceThe Hollywood Reporter | Email this | Comments



"

Los Angeles Farmers Markets Full Of Lies, Warehouse Produce

Los Angeles Farmers Markets Full Of Lies, Warehouse Produce: "


If you're in California and need to make a little extra cash, why not buy a bag of baby carrots from the supermarket, throw some potting soil on them, and sell them at your local farmers market as fresh-from-your-farm organic treats? Okay, maybe technically that's not permitted, but who's going to stop you? An NBCLA investigation found vendors at several farmers markets were lying to customers about their produce, and sourcing it from local warehouses instead of their own farms.



NBCLA's investigation began this summer, when we bought produce at farmers markets across the LA area, and then made surprise visits to farms where we were told the produce was being grown.



We found farms full of weeds, or dry dirt, instead of rows of the vegetables that were being sold at the markets.



The station also tailed a farmers market vendor on the day of the market and watched him drive to a warehouse and load up his truck with produce from farms as far away as Mexico. When they confronted him and asked whether he was going to sell the produce at the farmers market, he said yes.



As for pesticide-free claims, three of the five strawberry samples the station bought (all from different vendors) tested positive for pesticides, despite all promises to the contrary. NBCLA told one of the vendors about the results--her berries tested positive for four different pesticides--and asked, 'You don't know how that happened?' She answered, 'Nope.'






View more news videos at: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/video.






'False Claims, Lies Caught on Tape at Farmers Markets' [NBCLA via Metafilter]

"

VIDEO: Sprint Store Laptop Filters Out Anti-Sprint Consumerist Content

VIDEO: Sprint Store Laptop Filters Out Anti-Sprint Consumerist Content: "


Consumerist reader Brian got bored while he was waiting for his friend to finish up a transaction at their local Sprint store. So he decided to kill time by trying out the in-store public laptop. That's when he discovered something of interest.



Writes Brian:

My friend was wrapping up with the clerk and I thought why not leave the Company Profile for Sprint up just for kicks. But to my surprise, the store filters out just the Sprint info from Consumerist. Stories tagged Sprint end up redirecting me to their home page. The Consumerist site worked fine for other stories and other phone companies.



So instead of getting this page, he was redirected to the Sprint homepage.



Wouldn't it have just been easier to block Consumerist.com entirely? Or maybe they want customers to read what we write about AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile?



"