The Court of Appeals held that the FDA practice was unconstitutional. The standard employed by the agency was not defined by the agencies rules, making it unclear to applicants what level of scientific agreement was required to support a nutritional supplement health claim. By requiring "significant agreement" the FDA prohibited claims that were debatable, or only supported by marginal scientific agreement. The supplements Pearson was attempting to label had been in the marketplace for a long time and had been proven safe. The FDA contended that the evidence, while supported by an adequate amount of research, did not present a high enough level of agreement about the truth of the claims. Pearson claimed, and the court agreed, that a disclaimer could allow the supplement to represent the degree of support the statements had from scientific literature, while expressing the FDA's lack of support for the claim. Because the FDA's process did not represent the least restrictive method of accomplishing a legitimate government restriction of a fundamental right, it was unconstitutional. The court deferred to the FDA on the precise wording of any disclaimer.
Full case and case summary also available online at: http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Pearson_v_DeptofHealthandHumanServices.php
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.