Unique device identification system. Final rule

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule to establish a system to adequately identify devices through distribution and use. This rule requires the label of medical devices to include a unique device identifier (UDI), except where the rule provides for an exception or alternative placement. The labeler must submit product information concerning devices to FDA's Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID), unless subject to an exception or alternative. The system established by this rule requires the label and device package of each medical device to include a UDI and requires that each UDI be provided in a plain-text version and in a form that uses automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) technology. The UDI will be required to be directly marked on the device itself if the device is intended to be used more than once and intended to be reprocessed before each use.

Sunscreen regulations and use of anti-inflammatory agents in sunscreens

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been more proactive in regulating sunscreen products. In 2011, the FDA publicized a set of new requirements for marketing over-the-counter sunscreens in the United States. The primary goal of the new FDA requirements was to provide consumers with a clear understanding of the level of protection actually provided by a sunscreen. Furthermore, information about protection against ultraviolet A radiation, associated with early aging and skin cancer, was to be clarified. With the new regulations, sunscreen products that provide protection against ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B would be allowed to be marketed as broad-spectrum sunscreen [1].

The hazard communication of fragrance allergens must be improved

Contact allergy is a global health problem that could be alleviated considerably if the general public could reduce contact to sensitizers. Efficient hazard communication would be a valuable instrument to achieve this. What do current regulations concerning fragrance sensitizers in cosmetic products in Europe contribute? For example, there are bans and restrictions according to the Cosmetic Regulation, there is the "26 allergens rule" that requires that the names of some allergenic fragrance ingredients are listed on the containers, there is labeling and classification of hazardous products according to Regulation 1272/2008, and there is the regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH). Do these regulations increase consumer protection by suitable hazard communication instruments? Four main problems were identified. First, according to the 26 allergens rule, consumers carry a very large part of the responsibility for risk reduction management. They need to be capable and motivated to recognize the names of strong allergens listed in the ingredient list and decide for themselves whether they want to run the risk or not, provided that they are aware of their responsibility. Second, cosmetic products do not need to be classified and labeled like other consumer goods, according to the European Commission Regulation 1272/2008, if they contain hazardous substances. Third, some pictograms for hazardous substances, for example, the exclamation mark for sensitizers, are not well understood by the majority of the general public. Fourth, very often, the design of cosmetic containers implies health and well being, even if the respective products contain sensitizers or other hazardous substances. Against this background, the following improvements are proposed: 1) the 26 allergens rule needs revision, 2) the exception for cosmetic products from labeling and classification should be abolished, 3) a new self-explanatory pictogram for skin sensitizers and skin irritants should become mandatory for consumer products containing allergens, and 4) packaging of products containing hazardous substances should not be allowed to be attractive and evoke feelings that the products were harmless. Labeling of consumer products can be a very efficient tool for risk communication, however, the addressees must be sufficiently trained to understand the system and know the consequences of their behavior. Transparent labeling will increase the credibility of manufacturers and can lead to a subsequent improved risk management with a benefit for all stakeholders.

Human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Final rule

This document resolves several issues regarding compliance with the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) regulations for conducting environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as they relate to the guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields. More specifically, the Commission clarifies evaluation procedures and references to determine compliance with its limits, including specific absorption rate (SAR) as a primary metric for compliance, consideration of the pinna (outer ear) as an extremity, and measurement of medical implant exposure. The Commission also elaborates on mitigation procedures to ensure compliances with its limits, including labeling and other requirements for occupational exposure classification, clarification of compliance responsibility at multiple transmitter sites, and labeling of fixed consumer transmitters.

Poison politics: a contentious history of consumer protection against dangerous household chemicals in the United States

The history of consumer protection against household poisons presents a key case study of the uniquely American struggle to balance public health and safety with the interests of business. By the late 19th century, package designs, warning labels, and state statutes had formed an uneven patchwork of protective mechanisms against accidental poisonings. As household chemicals proliferated in the early 20th century, physicians concerned with childhood poisonings pressured the federal government to enact legislation mandating warning labels on packaging for these substances. Manufacturers of household chemicals agreed to labeling requirements for caustic poisons but resisted broader regulation. Accidental poisonings of children continued to increase until the enactment of broad labeling and packaging legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. This history suggests that voluntary agreements between government agencies and manufacturers are inadequate to protect consumers against household poisonings and that, in the United States, protective household chemical regulation proceeds in a reactive rather than a precautionary manner.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and the law in Australia: the need for awareness and concern to translate into urgent action

Awareness of the social tragedies and legal difficulties caused by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder has been emerging since the 1960s. However, although a great deal is now known clinically about the disorder, its diagnosis and what needs to be done by way of prevention and management, a co-ordinated therapeutic and public health response in Australia has thus far been lacking. In turn, this is having a range of repercussions for the courts in evaluating accused persons' criminal responsibility and culpability. Two high-quality and extensive reports during 2012 from Western Australian and Commonwealth parliamentary committees have documented the problems and provided a blueprint for a collaborative and comprehensive intergovernmental response. The challenge for government is now to implement the proposals throughout Australia (and be guided by them in New Zealand) as a matter of urgency.

Employee impact and attitude analysis for GHS implementation in Taiwan

The employee impact and attitude analysis for GHS implementation in Taiwan was investigated in this study. An impact assessment on the new regulations or changes in regulations for government, potential costs, benefits, and the global trade in chemicals to industries and hazard communication program for workers was studied by the methods of the questionnaire design and Delphi expert method. A survey was conducted using questionnaires and taking 200 experts from government's expert database and 500 selected respondents from case company. Results from present study revealed that the barrier associated with GHS implementation is existed; it is feasible to overcome. Both experts and employees think that business entities are insufficient to test and classify chemicals on their own, and the technical guidance from the government is needed. Data analyzed by the logistic regression revealed that more hours an employee spends on education and trainings of new GHS systems; the employee thinks implementation of GHS will improve hazard awareness for transporters. The weak labeling ability affects deployment of the new GHS system.

Flexibilities in WTO law to support tobacco control regulation

Cases concerning the regulation of tobacco have long existed within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947 (GATT 1947), although often these cases have not centered on the detrimental health impact of tobacco products. With the 2012 circulation of the Report of the WTO Appellate Body in U.S.—Clove Cigarettes, the potential friction between international trade law and tobacco regulation in the context of public health has come to the fore. In that Report, the Appellate Body found in part against the United States’ flavored cigarette ban. Combined with the ongoing WTO challenges to mandatory plain tobacco packaging in Australia—Tobacco Plain Packaging, governments might begin to fear that the WTO agreements represent an insurmountable barrier to ambitious tobacco control measures. However, careful examination of the Clove Cigarettes case alongside the two other recent Appellate Body Reports (U.S.—Tuna II (Mexico)5 and U.S.—COOL6) on the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement)7 demonstrates that the TBT Agreement has ample flexibility to accommodate health objectives underlying tobacco regulation.

Tobacco control and beyond: the broader implications of United States Clove Cigarettes for non-communicable diseases

As implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) accelerates and states seek to address risk factors for non-communicable disease more broadly, tension has increased between the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and public health. For example, Indonesia recently brought a successful claim against a U.S. law that prohibits cigarettes with a characterizing flavor other than menthol or tobacco. Indonesia succeeded in arguing that the regulation discriminates against clove-flavored cigarettes of Indonesian origin in favor of menthol-flavored cigarettes of U.S. origin.

Also in the WTO context, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Ukraine have challenged an Australian law prohibiting the presence of branding on tobacco packaging other than product and variant names in a standardized location, font size, and style. This regulation, commonly referred to as “plain packaging,” is the first of its kind and may represent a turning point in the regulation of tobacco packaging.

Compelled commercial speech: the Food and Drug Administration's effort to smoke out the tobacco industry through graphic warning labels

FDA's proposed graphic warning labels for cigarette packages have been scrutinized for potentially violating the First Amendment's free speech clause. This article addresses the distinction between the commercial speech and compelled speech doctrines and their applicability in analyzing the constitutionality of the labels. The government's position is that the labels evoke an emotional response and educate consumers, while tobacco companies argue that the labels forcibly promote the government's message. Two federal appellate courts, applying different legal standards, have arrived at different conclusions. This article advocates that the Supreme Court, if faced with review of the labels, should apply strict scrutiny and declare the labels unconstitutional.

Commercial speech law and tobacco marketing: a comparative discussion of the United States and Canada

In November 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA’s) proposed graphic health warnings for cigarette packages violated tobacco companies’ First Amendment rights. In doing so, he pointedly refused to consider the experiences of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the more than thirty other countries that had adopted similar graphic warnings in the past decade. Rather, he swatted away all references to those other countries’ experiences by stating (first at oral argument and then in his decision) that “none of [those countries] afford First Amendment protections like those found in our Constitution.”

While it is true that no other country uses the First Amendment per se, many other countries do offer constitutional protection to freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression. Indeed, several other countries apply “strikingly similar” legal tests when reviewing restrictions on speech (and on commercial speech in particular). Thus, the statement that other countries do not “afford First Amendment protections like those found in our Constitution” is an oversimplification.