Konjac root fiber case informs FDA liquid v DS guidance

By Shane Starling

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags Dietary supplements Food and drug administration Dietary supplement Fda

A 1983 court case that distinguished between a drug and a food on the grounds of taste, aroma or nutritive value, is informing recently issued FDA advice on the difference between liquid beverages and dietary supplements, according to an industry figure.

Loren Israelsen, the executive director of the United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA), said the Food and Drug Administration guidance would make it make it more difficult for companies to market liquid products as dietary supplements if the functional claims were not based on ingredients possessing taste, aroma or nutritive value.

“The DS industry has labored very hard for many years to overcome this regulatory construct, which is now being reasserted in this guidance,”​ Israel said in an email to industry this week.

“My prediction is that FDA will, in the coming year, reassert the taste, aroma, nutritive value test as part of its process to distinguish dietary supplements from conventional foods.”

The FDA, reacting to what it considered an unhealthy rise of such practices, issued the guidance this month. It can be found here.

The 1983 case – Nutrilab v Schweiker - concerned a starch blocker called konjac root fiber or glucomannan.

Representations

Israelsen also took issue with the idea of ‘product representation’, raised in the guidance, which he said was, “extraordinarily vague”.

“Even if your label, labeling and advertising are based on DSHEA/dietary supplement templates (supplement facts panel, Section 6 disclaimer, structure/function claims, etc.), FDA suggests that they retain the final decision to decide what is a food or dietary supplement,”​ he wrote.

Packaging, volume, brand name, bottle or can shape or size, use of words such as beverage, drink, water, juice or similar terms, could all individually or in collectively, influence final categorization of a product.

“This concept would clearly also extend to other kinds of delivery systems such as bars, mini snacks, shakes, yogurt cups, etc. So, we are once again back to a major discussion point of ‘delivery system determines regulatory status’."

The vagaries of GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status was also highlighted, especially intended use, which if not defined could cause classification problems.

“GRAS affirmation is based on intended use. What FDA is driving at is that you may be GRAS affirmed for something, but if ingredient X is used in higher levels or under new conditions of use, say good-bye to your GRAS affirmation.”


Related news

Related products

show more

MOROSIL:INGREDIENT OF THE YEAR

MOROSIL:INGREDIENT OF THE YEAR

Content provided by BIONAP BIOACTIVE NATURAL PRODUCTS | 07-Mar-2024 | Product Brochure

MOROSIL™ has won as Ingredient of the Year in the category Weight Management at 2023 Nutraingredient USA. MOROSIL ™ is a standardized extract derived from...

In Weight Management Go Beyond with Slendacor®

In Weight Management Go Beyond with Slendacor®

Content provided by PLT Health Solutions | 22-Feb-2024 | White Paper

Slendacor® is a synergistic, patented formulation of three standardized herbal extracts: turmeric (Curcuma longa), moringa (Moringa oleifera) and curry...

Polyphenol extracts as weight management catalysts

Polyphenol extracts as weight management catalysts

Content provided by DolCas Biotech, LLC. | 18-Jan-2024 | White Paper

Viable natural product options for "healthy weight management" in the age of Ozempic and other GLP-1 inhibitors will require targeted innovations...

Related suppliers

Follow us

Products

View more

Webinars