HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


Are Designer Steroids Dietary Ingredients? FDA Warning Letter Skirts Issue

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

Assuming designer steroids are dietary ingredients, they also appear to be new dietary ingredients, FDA writes in a warning letter to the online retailer Bodybuilding.com

You may also be interested in...

Steroids Sold As Supplements Targeted In FDA Actions, Congressional Hearing

Enhanced FDA enforcement against steroid products sold as dietary supplements is likely reassuring to law-abiding supplement companies

FDA Warning Draws Solid Line Between Steroid Products And Supplements

FDA's enforcement approach toward a firm warned about marketing synthetic steroids as dietary supplements represents a more watertight legal strategy than the agency has used in similar scenarios

Bodybuilding.com settlement

Online retailer Bodybuilding.com is required to provide a reproductive toxicity warning to consumers before they purchase select designer steroid products marketed on its website, under the terms of a settlement the firm recently reached with the California-based non-profit Center for Environmental Health. Bodybuilding.com is also required to show the warning before the sale of products containing any of 11 listed ingredients, according to the consent judgment. The 10 products requiring the warning include all the products named in an October 2005 Washington Post article on muscle-building products containing designer steroids and several other products (1"The Tan Sheet" Dec. 5, 2005, p. 9). A monetary penalty of $22,500, to be paid to CEH, is also included in the settlement. San Francisco, Calif.-based Lexington Law Group filed the Prop 65 lawsuit on behalf of CEH July 25 (2"The Tan Sheet" Aug. 7, 2006, p. 10). A hearing on the motion to approve the settlement is set for Oct. 10, according to Lexington Law Group Attorney Howard Hirsh...

Related Content


Latest Headlines
See All



Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts