NDI guidance public comments: Don't revise it, ditch it

NDI guidance public comments: Don't revise it, ditch it

The FDA should calculate how much complying with its guidance on new dietary ingredients (NDIs) will cost before forcing the supplements industry to embark on a “giant paperwork exercise” that will not make consumers any safer, according to the first group of stakeholders to issue formal public comments.

While trade associations are still gathering feedback from members (and lawyers), several doctors, supplement makers and other stakeholders have now put pen to paper to express concerns about the controversial draft NDI guidance (click here to see all comments submitted to date) before the official comment period closes on October 3.

While many respondents have vented their anger, however, few have some up with specific suggestions as to how FDA officials might actually revise the guidance to make it more palatable.

Indeed, most urge the FDA to simply drop it.

Economic impact assessment

However, some commentators have made concrete suggestions.

One such is California-based health writer and dietary supplement formulator Bill Sardi, who argues that the FDA should not proceed until it has calculated the cost of compliance, and then conducted a cost benefit analysis to ascertain whether implementation can be justified.

The costs of full compliance could be astronomical, he claims: “Let's say, for a large company that has 300 lines in its catalog, you are talking $21m just for gene-tox [genetic toxicology tests at $70,000 a time] and then maybe hundreds of millions of dollars for birth-defect studies.”

NDI notifications should be for raw materials

Meanwhile, NDI notifications should apply to NDIs themselves, and not to every product or supplement manufacturer supplying a product that contains them, he argues.

“I naively thought raw material suppliers would submit NDIs and that would take care of it for all branders thereafter. But FDA wants final product (formula) testing. This seems ridiculous.”

Several commentators have made the same point. One says: “It would be more effective to have one or only a few NDI notifications being sent for an ingredient which the FDA can more thoroughly review and provide feedback or approval.”

Meanwhile, concerns about how the NDI might behave in different formulations could still be addressed, he claims: “The ingredient supplier may submit a NDI notification where they list all the forms for which the new ingredients may be used and their basis for the safety of each form.”

Dietary supplements are not drugs

While Priority One Nutritional Supplements president Danielle Baumgart does not clarify what should constitute an appropriate level of proof of an ingredient’s grandfathered status, the FDA has raised the bar too high, she argues.

We have many old records for pre-DSHEA ingredients but even then the burden of proof as laid out in the guidance is impossible to adhere to effectively.”

Critically, the FDA’s line on grandfathered ingredients is not consistent with the intent of Congress when it passed the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994, claims naturopathic physician Hilary Back: “FDA, ignoring the intent of Congress, will reduce ingredients meeting the established grandfathered status to a very small number”

Another respondent says: “Don't erode DSHEA by turning supplements into pharmaceuticals.”

The bottom line, claims Sardi, is that the guidance is "impractical, imposes onerous and incalculable costs upon industry and consumers, would result in the withdrawal of many dietary supplements which Americans rely upon for their health, may end up being nothing more than a giant paperwork exercise without improving public health and safety, and represents issuance of yet another document from FDA that unfairly portrays dietary supplements as unsafe and adulterated.”

Click here to submit your comments to the FDA about the guidance.

Related News

Rice: Find the middle ground

Supplements trade: NDI guidance can be salvaged, but give us more time

Emord: FDA has “grossly underestimated” costs of compliance

Emord on NDI guidance: Politics has prevailed over science and common sense

NDI draft is "rulemaking by guidance", says Ullman

Ullman: NDI guidance creates ‘new dietary supplement’ notification process

Hatch: Increasingly concerned

Hatch NDI guidance meeting: File comments for now, then explore legal avenues …

AHPA: FDA will be 'laughed out of court' if it sticks to its guns on supplement-specific NDI notifications

AHPA: FDA will be 'laughed out of court' if it sticks to its guns on supplement-specific NDI notifications

Hatch: 'Alarmed' by NDI draft guidance

DSHEA co-author is ‘alarmed’ by NDI guidance

Fabricant: Gap between NDI numbers and submissions is too big 'no matter how you slice it'

Fabricant: Gap between NDI numbers and submissions is too big 'no matter how you slice it'

Jarrow Formulas FOIA request on NDIs: ‘In sum, FDA has told us to drop dead’

Trade to FDA: Don’t leave us in limbo on NDI guidance

Trade to FDA: Don’t leave us in limbo on NDI guidance

NPA: "The draft guidance completely eviscerates the food additive prohibitions that Congress so carefully placed in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act and also contravenes the deep-rooted DSHEA policy in favor of consumer freedowm of choice and support for smaller businesses."

NPA to FDA: Ditch product-specific notifications and accept our grandfathered lists … and NDI guidance could be salvaged

Feldstein: 'Impossible burden' on industry

‘No logic’ to FDA view on product-specific NDI notifications, says lawyer

It might not be legally binding, but ignore the FDA's draft guidance at your peril...

NDI guidance poll verdict: It’s catastrophic ...

Siegner: This will shut off innovation

Lawyer on NDI guidance: FDA is trying to ‘dismantle’ DSHEA

Lawyer: FDA line on grandfathered ingredients was not made clear

Lawyer: FDA line on grandfathered ingredients was not made clear

Kruger: Think about this from a consumer confidence perspective

Toxicologist: FDA’s NDI guidance is entirely reasonable

Fabricant: "This is not a doomsday scenario."

FDA on NDI guidance: This is ‘not a doomsday scenario’ for supplements trade

ABC's Mark Blumenthal

ABC on NDI guidance: ‘We find this problematic’

Doing nothing and hoping it will all go away is not a good plan ...

Frankos on NDI guidance (part two): This really isn’t a big surprise

Frankos: You don't have to go out and spend millions on new tox studies...

Frankos on NDI guidance (part one): Take a deep breath and don’t panic

CRN: NDI guidance will stifle innovation

Mister on NDI guidance: ‘We are terribly disappointed.’

Could the trade mount a legal challenge vs NDI guidance?

Could the trade mount a legal challenge vs NDI guidance?

NDI guidance: ‘Absurdly broad, anti-innovative and incredibly burdensome’

NDI guidance: ‘Absurdly broad, anti-innovative and incredibly burdensome’

The wait is over: FDA releases NDI draft guidance

The wait is over: FDA releases NDI draft guidance

Comments (2)

Harry - 10 Aug 2011 | 06:35

dietary suppliments

AGREED at last this would make sence and stop the disruction of health and industry

10-Aug-2011 at 18:35 GMT

Dr Lal Hingorani - 04 Aug 2011 | 07:17

NDI guidelines

They are trying to make them similar to drug laws what FDA knows best. Probably they need persons from Nutrition field to frame these laws. There is need for regulations but how much and how that has to be weighed.

04-Aug-2011 at 07:17 GMT

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.