World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

History of the Food and Drug Administration

Article Id: WHEBN0033866150
Reproduction Date:

Title: History of the Food and Drug Administration  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Food and Drug Administration, History of organizations, History of the United States, Center for Tobacco Products, Frank Edward Young (physician)
Collection: Food and Drug Administration, History of Organizations, History of the United States
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

History of the Food and Drug Administration

This article is about the history of the United States Food and Drug Administration.


  • Early history 1
    • Origins of federal food and drug regulation 1.1
    • The 1906 Food and Drug Act and creation of the FDA 1.2
    • The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 1.3
  • Regulation of human drugs and medical devices after 1938 2
    • Early FD&C Act amendments: 1938–1958 2.1
    • Expansion of premarket approval process: 1959–1985 2.2
    • FDA reforms in the AIDS era 2.3
    • Challenges to FDA authority by states 2.4
    • Regulation of living organisms 2.5
  • Timeline of food and drug legislation 3
  • References 4
  • Further reading 5

Early history

Origins of federal food and drug regulation

Up until the 20th century, there were few federal laws regulating the contents and sale of domestically produced food and pharmaceuticals, with one exception being the short-lived

  •  317650570, 50016270 and 163149563 OCLC  

Further reading

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h A History of the FDA
  2. ^ a b "The Radioactive Death of Eben Byers". Medical Curiosities. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  3. ^ "Radithor Radioactive Health Water!". Esmeralda's Quiet Life. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  4. ^ "Medicine: Radium Drinks". Time Magazine. 11 April 1932. Retrieved 26 March 2012. 
  5. ^ Original Text of the 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Amendments
  6. ^ United States v. Johnson (1911), 6df1b297de555a5c 221 U.S. 488 (31 S. Ct. 627 May 29, 1911, decided).
  7. ^ a b Milestones in U.S. Food and Drug Law History
  8. ^ Hamowy, Ronald (February 2010). "Medical Disasters and the Growth of FDA" (PDF). p. 7. Retrieved 28 September 2011. 
  9. ^ Report of Congressman Morris Udall on thalidomide and the Kefauver hearings.
  10. ^ Temple R (2002). "Policy developments in regulatory approval". Statistics in Medicine 21 (19): 2939–2948.  
  11. ^ a b  
  12. ^ Karki L (2005). "Review of FDA Law Related to Pharmaceuticals: The Hatch-Waxman Act, Regulatory Amendments and Implications for Drug Patent Enforcement". Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society 87: 602–620. 
  13. ^ ACT-UP NY timeline
  14. ^ Faster Approval of AIDS Drugs Is Urged, The New York Times, August 16, 1990, Thursday, Late Edition – Final, Section B; Page 12, Column 4; National Desk, 830 words, By ROBERT PEAR, Special to The New York Times, Washington, Aug. 15
  15. ^ FDA Website: Expanded Access and Expedited Approval of New Therapies Related to HIV/AIDS
  16. ^ Orlando V (1999). "The FDA's Accelerated Approval Process: Does the Pharmaceutical Industry Have Adequate Incentives for Self-Regulation?". American Journal of Law and Medicine 25 (4): 543–68.  
  17. ^ FDA report on accelerated approval process
  18. ^
  19. ^ a b
  20. ^ Kampia, Rob (4 May 2012). "Medical marijuana meets hostility from Obama administration". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 June 2012. 
  21. ^ Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Web Version


Important enabling legislation for the FDA includes:

Most federal laws concerning the FDA are part of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,[21] (first passed in 1938 and extensively amended since) and are codified in Title 21, Chapter 9 of the United States Code. Other significant laws enforced by the FDA include the Public Health Service Act, parts of the Controlled Substances Act, the Federal Anti-Tampering Act, as well as many others. In many cases these responsibilities are shared with other federal agencies.

Timeline of food and drug legislation

In June 2004, the FDA cleared Hirudo medicinalis (medicinal leeches) as the second living organism to be used as a medical devices.

With acceptance of premarket notification 510(k) k033391 in January 2004, the FDA granted Dr. Ronald Sherman permission to produce and market medical maggots for use in humans or other animals as a prescription medical device. Medical maggots represent the first living organism allowed by the Food and Drug Administration for production and marketing as a prescription medical device.

Regulation of living organisms

The second wave concerned medical marijuana in the 1990s and 2000s. Though Virginia passed a law with limited effect in 1979, a more widespread trend began in California in 1996. In 2009, the Obama Administration de-prioritized enforcement of federal law against patients using the drug in compliance with state law, but reversed this policy in 2011.[20] Recreational marijuana remains illegal (but not necessarily criminal) in all states and at the federal level, as of 2009.

The first wave was the legalization by 27 states of laetrile in the late 1970s. This drug was used as a treatment for cancer, but scientific studies both before and after this legislative trend found it to be ineffective.[18][19] Federal law enforcement prevented interstate shipment, making the drug infeasible to manufacture and sell. Further studies based on a Mexican formulation also showed no effectiveness in treating cancer, but did find that some patients experienced symptoms of cyanide poisoning. Though the political movement died out in the 1980s, FDA enforcement actions against laetrile purveyors continued into the 2000s.[19]

In two instances, state governments have sought to legalize drugs which have not been approved by the FDA. Because federal law passed pursuant to Constitutional authority overrules conflicting state laws, federal authorities still claim the authority to seize, arrest, and prosecute for possession and sales of these substances, even in states where they are legal under state law.

Challenges to FDA authority by states

All of the initial drugs approved for the treatment of HIV/AIDS were approved through accelerated approval mechanisms. For example, a "treatment IND" was issued for the first HIV drug, AZT, in 1985, and approval was granted just two years later in 1987.[17] Three of the first five drugs targeting HIV were approved in the United States before they were approved in any other country.

Partly in response to these criticisms, the FDA issued new rules to expedite approval of drugs for life-threatening diseases, and expanded pre-approval access to drugs for patients with limited treatment options.[15] The first of these new rules was the "IND exemption" or "treatment IND" rule, which allowed expanded access to a drug undergoing phase II or III trials (or in extraordinary cases even earlier) if it potentially represented a safer or better alternative to treatments currently available for terminal or serious illness. A second new rule, the "parallel track policy", allowed a drug company to set up a mechanism for access to a new potentially lifesaving drug by patients who for various reasons would be unable to participate in ongoing clinical trials. The "parallel track" designation could be made at the time of IND submission. The accelerated approval rules were further expanded and codified in 1992.[16]

[14], then chairman of a presidential advisory panel on drug approval, estimated that thousands of lives were lost each year due to delays in approval and marketing of drugs for cancer and AIDS.Dr. Louis Lasagna In August 1990, [13] Concerns about the length of the drug approval process were brought to the fore early in the

FDA reforms in the AIDS era

The act extended the patent exclusivity terms of new drugs, and importantly tied those extensions, in part, to the length of the FDA approval process for each individual drug. For generic manufacturers, the Act created a new approval mechanism, the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), in which the generic drug manufacturer need only demonstrate that their generic formulation has the same active ingredient, route of administration, dosage form, strength, and pharmacokinetic properties ("bioequivalence") as the corresponding brand-name drug. This act has been credited with essentially creating the modern generic drug industry.[12]

One of the most important statutes in establishing the modern American pharmaceutical market was the 1984 Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, more commonly known as the "Hatch-Waxman Act" after its chief sponsors. This act was intended to correct two unfortunate interactions between the new regulations mandated by the 1962 amendments, and existing patent law (which is not regulated or enforced by the FDA, but rather by the United States Patent and Trademark Office). Because the additional clinical trials mandated by the 1962 amendments significantly delayed the marketing of new drugs, without extending the duration of the manufacturer's patent, "pioneer" drug manufacturers experienced a decreased period of lucrative market exclusivity. On the other hand, the new regulations could be interpreted to require complete safety and efficacy testing for generic copies of approved drugs, and "pioneer" manufacturers obtained court decisions which prevented generic manufacturers from even beginning the clinical trial process while a drug was still under patent. The Hatch-Waxman Act was intended as a compromise between the "pioneer" and generic drug manufacturers which would reduce the overall cost of bringing generics to market and thus, it was hoped, reduce the long-term price of the drug, while preserving the overall profitability of developing new drugs.

These reforms had the effect of increasing the time required to bring a drug to market.[11] In the mid-1970s, 13 of the 14 drugs the FDA saw as most important to approve were on the market in other countries before the United States.[11]

The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment to the FD&C act represented a "revolution" in FDA regulatory authority.[10] The most important change was the requirement that all new drug applications demonstrate "substantial evidence" of the drug's efficacy for a marketed indication, in addition to the existing requirement for pre-marketing demonstration of safety. This marked the start of the FDA approval process in its modern form. Drugs approved between 1938 and 1962 were also subject to FDA review of their efficacy, and to potential withdrawal from the market. Other important provisions of the 1962 amendments included the requirement that drug companies use the "established" or "generic" name of a drug along with the trade name, the restriction of drug advertising to FDA-approved indications, and expansion of FDA powers to inspect drug manufacturing facilities.

In 1959, Senator Estes Kefauver began holding congressional hearings into concerns about pharmaceutical industry practices, such as the perceived high cost and uncertain efficacy of many drugs promoted by manufacturers. There was significant opposition, however, to calls for a new law expanding the FDA's authority. This climate was rapidly changed by the thalidomide tragedy, in which thousands of European babies were born deformed after their mothers took that drug - marketed for treatment of nausea - during their pregnancies. Thalidomide had not been approved for use in the U.S. due to the concerns of an FDA reviewer, Frances Oldham Kelsey, about thyroid toxicity. However, thousands of "trial samples" had been sent to American doctors during the "clinical investigation" phase of the drug's development, which at the time was entirely unregulated by the FDA. Individual members of Congress cited the thalidomide incident in lending their support to expansion of FDA authority.[9]

Expansion of premarket approval process: 1959–1985

Soon after passage of the 1938 Act, the FDA began to designate certain drugs as safe for use only under the supervision of a medical professional, and the category of "prescription-only" drugs was securely codified into law by the 1951 Durham-Humphrey Amendment.[1] While pre-market testing of drug efficacy was not authorized under the 1938 FD&C Act, subsequent amendments such as the Insulin Amendment and Penicillin Amendment did mandate potency testing for formulations of specific lifesaving pharmaceuticals.[7] The FDA began enforcing its new powers against drug manufacturers who could not substantiate the efficacy claims made for their drugs, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in Alberty Food Products Co. v. United States (1950) found that drug manufacturers could not evade the "false therapeutic claims" provision of the 1938 act by simply omitting the intended use of a drug from the drug's label. These developments confirmed extensive powers for the FDA to enforce post-marketing recalls of ineffective drugs.[1] Much of the FDA's regulatory attentions in this era were directed towards abuse of amphetamines and barbiturates, but the agency also reviewed some 13,000 new drug applications between 1938 and 1962. While the science of toxicology was in its infancy at the start of this era, rapid advances in experimental assays for food additive and drug safety testing were made during this period by FDA regulators and others.[1]

Early FD&C Act amendments: 1938–1958

Regulation of human drugs and medical devices after 1938

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the new Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) into law on June 24, 1938. The new law significantly increased federal regulatory authority over drugs by mandating a pre-market review of the safety of all new drugs, as well as banning false therapeutic claims in drug labeling without requiring that the FDA prove fraudulent intent. The law also authorized factory inspections and expanded enforcement powers, set new regulatory standards for foods, and brought cosmetics and therapeutic devices under federal regulatory authority. This law, though extensively amended in subsequent years, remains the central foundation of FDA regulatory authority to the present day.[1]

By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products which had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, the mascara Lash lure, which caused blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis. The resulting proposed law was unable to get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent. The only way that the FDA could even seize the product was due to a misbranding problem: an "Elixir" was defined as a medication dissolved in ethanol, not the diethylene glycol used in the Elixir Sulfanilamide. Had it been labeled a "solution" instead, it is argued, the agency could have done nothing to track down and confiscate what medication remained in the public's hands.[8]

The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

[7] Wiley used these new regulatory powers to pursue an aggressive campaign against the manufacturers of foods with chemical additives, but the Chemistry Bureau's authority was soon checked by judicial decisions, as well as by the creation of the Board of Food and Drug Inspection and the Referee Board of Consulting Scientific Experts as separate organizations within the USDA in 1907 and 1908 respectively. A 1911

In June 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law the Food and Drug Act, also known as the "Wiley Act" after its chief advocate.[1] The Act prohibited, under penalty of seizure of goods, the interstate transport of food which had been "adulterated," with that term referring to the addition of fillers of reduced "quality or strength," coloring to conceal "damage or inferiority," formulation with additives "injurious to health," or the use of "filthy, decomposed, or putrid" substances. The act applied similar penalties to the interstate marketing of "adulterated" drugs, in which the "standard of strength, quality, or purity" of the active ingredient was not either stated clearly on the label or listed in the United States Pharmacopoeia or the National Formulary. The act also banned "misbranding" of food and drugs.[5] The responsibility for examining food and drugs for such "adulteration" or "misbranding" was given to Wiley's USDA Bureau of Chemistry.[1]

The 1906 Food and Drug Act and creation of the FDA


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.