Pearson v. Shalala
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
164 F.3d 650 (1999)
- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
Durk Pearson (plaintiff) sold dietary supplements. Before including a health claim on any of his supplements, Pearson had to get the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval. Pearson requested authorization for four products that linked the consumption of certain supplements with the reduction in risk of a particular disease. The supplements were not harmful, and there was some evidence backing the claims, but the FDA refused to authorize the claims because Pearson did not produce enough evidence to meet the level of significant scientific agreement. Pearson sued, and the court upheld the FDA’s decision. Pearson appealed, arguing that the significant-scientific-agreement standard was too restrictive.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Silberman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
