Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Yes. I'm concerned for a friend who has become a distributor for a canine joint supplement. The product is originally manufactured and imported from the US and is relabelled for the UK market via a third party.
The third party provide marketing text which includes comments such as "alleviates symptoms of wear and tear" and "the results are rapid and impressive and without the harmful side effects that come with the well known drug-based products".
I asked if there was any evidence for these claims and was told (by the third party) that there had not been any clinical trials on the product but that the US manufacturer "has examined the effectiveness of their product range". Would a manufacturer not have to carry out some tests on a product that is ingested by animals?
So to my original question - What is the criteria for including the terms:Clinically proven or Clinically trialled? Can the manufacturer examined the effectiveness without trialling in some shape or form? Can my friend use the marketing text without and proof?
I've noticed the list of ingredients names changes from the US label and the UK label. On asking about this, the third party says "In making all the animal food supplement labels compliant with the revised regulations we are required to state the plant source on the label rather than Hyaluronic Acid or Sodium Hyaluronate, and have been advised by the US manufacturer that this ingredient is an extract of Birch Plant".
It all sounds most odd to me and I'm worried my friend is being asked to sell a bogus or potentially unsafe product to unsuspecting pet owners.
What are your thoughts?
OK thanks - but are 'clinical trials' a licensed/regulated thing?
Could my friend carry out his own clinical trials? Ie monitor a sample of dogs on the supplement over a period of time?