HEALTH

PacificHealth names Duffner CEO

BY Michael Johnsen

MATAWAN, N.J. PacificHealth Labs on Tuesday announced that Fred Duffner has been promoted to CEO and president reporting directly to the board. Duffner previously had been named president in January 2010.

“We have made great progress this year refocusing the company on its core brands in sports nutrition, reducing expenses and in building our cash position,” Duffner stated. “I believe [PacificHealth] is now in a position to take back its leadership position in the category and begin to lead with new innovation and consumer messaging.”

keyboard_arrow_downCOMMENTS

Leave a Reply

No comments found

TRENDING STORIES

Polls

Which area of the industry do you think Amazon's entry would shake up the most?
HEALTH

KidZerts launches foot insoles for children

BY Michael Johnsen

SAN DIEGO KidZerts on Sunday announced the introduction of its wear-moldable arch support insoles for children.

Features include a moldable sub-layer that slowly will mold to the child’s foot while he or she wears it, an antimicrobial top cover that kills odor-causing bacteria and wicks moisture, a heel cup for stability and alignment, a broad heel seat for additional foot comfort, a beveled forefoot for a smooth transition and a moderate arch for support and alignment.

KidZerts insoles were designed by a team that includes a podiatrist, a pedorthist and specialists in the manufacturing of insoles, the company stated.

keyboard_arrow_downCOMMENTS

Leave a Reply

No comments found

TRENDING STORIES

Polls

Which area of the industry do you think Amazon's entry would shake up the most?
HEALTH

Industry voices opinion on Ninth Circuit decision of Matrixx Initiatives suit

BY Michael Johnsen

WASHINGTON Industry lobbyists last week weighed in on a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed for a class action lawsuit to proceed against Matrixx Initiatives because that company failed to disclose adverse event reports to its shareholders.

Both the Consumer Healthcare Products Association and the Council for Responsible Nutrition — and separately, the Natural Products Association — filed supporting briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the mere nondisclosure of adverse event reports should not give rise to liability under federal securities laws without applying a statistical significance standard. The Supreme Court had agreed to place the case on its docket in June.

The statements were in regard to Matrixx Initiatives vs. James Siracusano and NECA-IBEW Pension Fund.

“The statistical significance standard recognized by most courts of appeals appropriately recognizes that adverse event reports, standing alone, are not ‘material’ for purposes of federal securities laws,” CHPA/CRN wrote in its amicus curiae. “The statistical significance standard addresses the quality of the evidence of a relationship between an adverse event and a product, and therefore it is not the kind of ‘bright-line’ rule that [the Supreme] Court rejected in Basic Inc. vs. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).”

“The practical consequence of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, if it is not reversed, is that manufacturers … very likely will be forced to disclose all AERs, however insignificant, in order to avoid meritless — but expensive — strike suits against the supplement industry,” said Jonathan Cohn, who authored NPA’s separate amicus curiae.

CHPA/CRN also argued that the indiscriminate disclosure by public companies of all adverse event reports potentially associated with their products before being actually scientifically vetted may negatively impact consumer selection in one of two ways: Either a consumer will buy wholeheartedly into the alleged link between the use of a particular product and potential harm, and choose not to medicate or supplement with a product that could improve his or her health, or, conversely, a consumer may become so inundated with reports of AERs that he or she becomes numb to the announcements.

“The Food and Drug Administration has recognized that ‘overwarning’ has the effect of not warning at all, because the reader stops paying attention to excess warnings,” CHPA/CRN wrote in their brief.

“The [Ninth Circuit] decision is wrong because evaluation of safety signals is a scientific judgment ultimately made by the FDA,” stated John Gay, executive director and CEO of the NPA in a press release issued Friday. “Companies cannot possibly guess in advance what will be deemed adequate disclosure years later in collateral litigation,” added Scott Bass, a partner at Sidley Austin, which is counsel for NPA. “The [Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act] explicitly states that AERs are not proof of causation.”

Gay added, “The Ninth Circuit’s action is not good for manufacturers, not good for consumers and just is not good law. We hope the Supreme Court will agree.”

keyboard_arrow_downCOMMENTS

Leave a Reply

No comments found

TRENDING STORIES

Polls

Which area of the industry do you think Amazon's entry would shake up the most?