1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
  1. Sade
    FDA challenges marketing of DMAA products for lack of safety evidence

    Agency cites ten companies in warning letters

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued warning letters to ten manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements containing dimethylamylamine, more popularly known as DMAA, for marketing products for which evidence of the safety of the product had not been submitted to FDA.

    Also referred to as 1,3-dimethylamylamine, methylhexanamine, or geranium extract, the ingredient is in dietary supplements and is often touted as a "natural" stimulant.

    The companies receiving warning letters and their product names are:

    Company Product(s)

    Exclusive Supplements Biorhythm SSIN Juice

    Fahrenheit Nutrition Lean Efx

    Gaspari Nutrition Spirodex

    iSatori Global Technologies, LLCle Warfare, Inc. Napalm

    MuscleMeds Performance Technologies Code Red

    Nutrex Research Hemo Rage Black Lipo-6 Black Ultra Concentrate Lipo-6 Black Lipo-6 Black Hers Ultra Concentrate Lipo-6 Black Hers

    SEI Pharmaceuticals MethylHex 4,2

    SNI LLC Nitric Blast

    USP Labs, LLC Oxy Elite Pro Jack D

    "Before marketing products containing DMAA, manufacturers and distributors have a responsibility under the law to provide evidence of the safety of their products. They haven’t done that and that makes the products adulterated," said Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., Director of FDA’s Dietary Supplement Program.

    Specifically, the warning letters cite the companies for marketing products for which a notification had not been submitted for the use of DMAA as a New Dietary Ingredient (NDI). Under current law, dietary supplement manufacturers or distributors who use certain dietary ingredients not marketed in a dietary supplement prior to October 15, 1994, are responsible for notifying the FDA of evidence to support their conclusion that their dietary supplements containing NDIs are safe. Manufacturers or distributors must submit notification at least 75 days before marketing their products. The companies warned today were marketing products for which this requirement had not been met.

    The FDA warning letters also advised the companies that the agency is not aware of evidence or history of use to indicate that DMAA is safe. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), manufacturers, marketers and distributors of dietary supplements are responsible for ensuring that they are marketing a safe product.

    The FDA letters noted that DMAA is known to narrow the blood vessels and arteries, which can elevate blood pressure and may lead to cardiovascular events ranging from shortness of breath and tightening in the chest to heart attack. The agency has received 42 adverse event reports on products containing DMAA. While the complaints do not establish that DMAA was the cause of the incidents, some of the reports have included cardiac disorders, nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, and death.

    The agency additionally warned the companies that synthetically-produced DMAA is not a “dietary ingredient” and, therefore, is not eligible to be used as an active ingredient in a dietary supplement. DSHEA defines a dietary ingredient as a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical, a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of these substances.

    The companies have 15 business days to respond to the FDA with the specific steps they will take to address the issues in the warning letters.

    For Immediate Release: April 27, 2012 Media Inquiries: Siobhan DeLancey, 301-796-4668 or 202-510-4177, siobhan.delancey@fda.hhs.gov; Tamara Ward, 301-796-7567, tamara.ward@fda.hhs.gov Trade Press Inquiries: Sebastian Cianci, 240-402-2291, sebastian.cianci@fda.hhs.gov Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA



  1. Alfa
    I wonder if this is related to the recent discovery that DMAA is not present in geranium oil. Geranium is a dietary ingredient, which is considered safe. Now that its clear that DMAA is no longer considered a safe dietary ingredient, as it has not been on the market before 1994, it is not allowed in food supplements.
    Has the FDA been working on DMAA for a long time, or is it acting upon the former?
  2. Sade
    I wasn't aware of the discovery. Would be interesting to know what prompted the FDA.

    Sade added 29 Minutes and 9 Seconds later...

    I've dug up some interesting stuff on the geranium oil debate but I'm not allowed to post links. Copy and paste is a mare on my phone too.

    The first article talks about how it hasn't been shown that DMAA isn't present in geranium oil. The second article talks about the deaths of two servicemen found to have DMAA in their system. I would be interested to know the names of the companies requesting further analysis from one of DMAA's harshest critic, James Neal-Kababick.

    Article 1: http://dmaaresearch.com/geranium-oil-research

    Article 2: http://www.stripes.com/news/military-probe-adding-to-skepticism-of-dmaa-1.167088
  3. Docta
    I think it's more than just speculation that the action is because DMAA is not present in geranium, their was some interest in DMAA shown in a supplement to Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act on 28-10-2008
    That said, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of any pro active control over imports witch is the usual preamble for a clampdown, only one shipment of DMAA from china was returned after import refusal on the grounds of possible pesticide adulteration. The only irregularity that the independent laboratory report doesn't seem to exist and as the shipment was only turned around last November it may well have been preemptive to the April 27, 2012, announcement.

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!