The settlement, announced by the U.S. Department of Justice, addresses allegations that Alibaba’s U.S.-based payment processor, AUS Merchant Services, failed to implement adequate safeguards to prevent unlawful transactions involving third-party merchants on the company’s online marketplaces, including Alibaba.com and AliExpress.

Although Alibaba has entered into the agreement, the company reached a non-prosecution agreement with federal authorities rather than facing criminal charges.

According to the Justice Department, Alibaba acknowledged that from January 2016 through December 2024, it failed to prevent approximately 80,000 product sales involving goods that violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other U.S. laws governing imported products.

Compliance Concerns Raised Internally

Federal officials said the investigation found that Alibaba employees had expressed concerns internally about weaknesses in the company’s compliance systems. According to the settlement announcement, those safeguards were not sufficient to prevent illegal products from being listed and sold through the company’s platforms.

Authorities also alleged that, in certain cases, merchants used Alibaba’s internal messaging tools to direct customers to third-party communication platforms, where transactions involving prohibited products could be completed outside the company’s primary marketplace.

The Justice Department said these practices contributed to unlawful imports entering the United States through Alibaba-operated marketplaces.

Undercover Purchases Supported Investigation

The investigation involved multiple federal agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and other law enforcement partners.

Officials said investigators carried out more than 40 undercover purchases of pharmaceuticals and equipment that were illegal to import into the United States. Those purchases formed part of the evidence supporting the settlement.

The Justice Department stated that the agreement requires Alibaba to strengthen its compliance measures governing third-party sellers that market products to U.S. customers.

Alibaba Says Settlement Resolves Matter

In a statement, Alibaba said it had reached a mutually satisfactory resolution with the U.S. government and would implement stronger compliance procedures for products sold by third-party merchants to customers in the United States.

The company said the agreement reflects its commitment to improving oversight of its e-commerce platforms while continuing to support lawful cross-border trade.

Federal Officials Emphasize Corporate Compliance

Federal authorities said the settlement demonstrates the government’s continued focus on enforcing laws governing imported pharmaceuticals, regulated chemicals, and controlled substances sold through online marketplaces.

IRS Criminal Investigation Chief Jarod Koopman said the resolution highlights the agency’s commitment to tracing financial activity linked to unlawful commerce and ensuring companies operating in the United States comply with federal law.

The $600 million settlement concludes the government’s investigation without criminal prosecution while requiring Alibaba to strengthen oversight designed to prevent illegal products from reaching U.S. consumers.

Tags: Alibaba, U.S. Department of Justice, FDA, IRS Criminal Investigation, E-Commerce Regulation, Consumer Protection, Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Corporate Compliance, Online Marketplace, Trade Enforcement

The post Alibaba Agrees to Pay $600 Million to Settle U.S. Allegations Over Illegal Product Sales appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

According to The Associated Press, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened a public meeting to examine whether its long-standing framework—limiting supplements to substances derived from food, herbs, and vitamins—should be revised. The outcome could have implications for consumer safety, regulatory authority, and the rapidly expanding global supplement market.

Public health experts say the discussion reflects a broader tension between innovation in consumer health products and the need for evidence-based oversight, particularly as newer compounds enter markets without robust clinical validation.

Regulatory Boundaries Face Industry Pressure

The current FDA supplement regulation framework defines dietary supplements as a category of food, restricting ingredients to those historically consumed as part of the human diet. This definition has come under strain as manufacturers introduce compounds such as peptides and novel probiotics that do not meet traditional criteria.

Peptides—chains of amino acids often described as drug-like—are increasingly marketed for muscle growth, anti-aging, and injury recovery. However, health authorities note that clinical evidence supporting these claims remains limited, with many products lacking rigorous human trials.

Industry representatives argue that the statutory language governing supplements does not explicitly require ingredients to originate from food. According to AP News, some companies are calling on regulators to reinterpret the law to accommodate newer substances, citing regulatory ambiguity and commercial uncertainty.

An analytical review of this position suggests that expanding definitions without parallel evidence requirements could complicate enforcement and increase variability in product safety standards.

Safety Oversight Gaps Raise Public Health Concerns

Unlike pharmaceuticals, dietary supplements are not subject to pre-market approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring product safety and accurate labeling, a system that public health researchers have long criticized as insufficient.

With more than 100,000 products estimated to be in circulation, the absence of centralized review raises concerns about inconsistent quality, unverified claims, and potential adverse effects. Some experts warn that introducing novel bioactive compounds—such as peptides—without stricter oversight could amplify these risks.

Former regulators cited by AP News have argued that current rules already allow broad “structure and function” claims that can imply health benefits without demonstrating clinical efficacy. This regulatory gap may become more pronounced if ingredient eligibility is expanded.

From a policy perspective, the debate highlights the challenge of balancing consumer access with safeguards against misleading or unsupported health claims.

Political Alignment Shapes Regulatory Direction

The policy discussion is unfolding amid shifting political leadership in U.S. health agencies. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly expressed support for peptides and pledged to ease regulatory constraints on certain supplement categories.

According to AP reporting, several figures within the current health policy ecosystem have professional or financial ties to the supplement industry. These relationships have drawn scrutiny from public health advocates concerned about potential conflicts of interest.

Analysts note that regulatory reinterpretation could be influenced not only by legal arguments but also by broader political priorities, including deregulation and consumer choice initiatives.

This intersection of policy and industry interests underscores the importance of transparent decision-making processes, particularly when public health implications are significant.

Legal Uncertainty Adds Pressure on Regulators

The debate is further complicated by evolving legal standards governing federal agency authority. A 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision, referenced in AP coverage, curtailed the ability of agencies to broadly interpret statutes without explicit congressional direction.

Industry groups have signaled that they may challenge the FDA in court if regulatory definitions are not expanded. Legal experts suggest that this could test the boundaries of administrative authority in health regulation, potentially reshaping how agencies oversee emerging product categories.

From a global health governance perspective, the outcome may influence regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions, particularly in markets where U.S. standards often serve as a reference point.

Global Health Context and Market Implications

The supplement industry represents a multi-billion-dollar global market, with rapid growth driven by consumer demand for wellness products. Regulatory changes in the United States could have ripple effects internationally, affecting trade, product standards, and consumer perceptions.

While innovation in nutrition and health products continues to accelerate, public health authorities emphasize the need for evidence-based frameworks that distinguish between food, supplements, and therapeutic agents.

Further study is required to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of emerging compounds such as peptides, particularly when marketed to broad populations without medical supervision.

The post FDA Supplement Regulation Debate Intensifies as Industry Pushes Peptide Approval appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dr. Vinay Prasad, a well-known critic of the pharmaceutical industry and COVID-19 policies, has been appointed to lead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) program for vaccines and biotech drugs.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary made the announcement on Tuesday, acknowledging Prasad’s “long and distinguished history in medicine.” This move marks a significant shift in leadership, as Prasad is stepping into a role traditionally held by a career scientist at the FDA, raising questions about how this might impact vaccine approval processes.

Prasad, who has long been vocal in his opposition to various pharmaceutical industry practices, is the latest figure from the medical and political fringes to join the federal government under President Donald Trump. His appointment, however, has sparked concerns over whether new therapies will face heightened scrutiny, potentially slowing down approval processes for vaccines and other critical treatments.

Prasad takes over from Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s previous vaccine chief, who resigned in March following disagreements with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccine safety issues. In a social media post, Prasad sharply criticized Marks, calling him “a bobblehead doll that just stamps approval.”

In interviews, Prasad has made his views on the FDA clear, suggesting that the agency’s current form may not be beneficial. Last year, during a podcast with former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, Prasad boldly stated that Americans might be “better off” without the FDA as it stands.

Prasad, a professor at the University of California San Francisco, has a medical background in cancer and blood disorders. He first gained recognition in academic circles for scrutinizing cancer therapies, showing that many fast-tracked cancer drugs approved by the FDA had never been proven to improve patient outcomes. These drugs were often approved based on measures like tumor shrinkage, which is thought to be a predictive sign of long-term survival but does not guarantee actual improvements in patients’ lives.

The FDA has consistently defended this approach as a way to expedite the approval of medications for patients with serious or terminal conditions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Prasad gained wider attention for his criticisms of vaccine mandates, mask mandates, lockdowns, and the accelerated approval of booster shots from Pfizer and Moderna. His stance echoed that of other Trump appointees like Makary and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya.

In 2022, Prasad and Makary co-authored a paper criticizing the recommendation for booster shots in teens and young adults, particularly males, due to concerns about the risk of myocarditis (a rare heart condition). The paper argued that mandating boosters for this group could cause more harm than good, though it was met with resistance from experts who noted that none of the authors were specialists in infectious diseases or vaccine reactions.

Angela Rasmussen, a virus expert at the University of Saskatchewan, expressed concern about Prasad’s appointment, predicting that it could harm vaccine access in the U.S. and hinder transparency in vaccine approvals. Rasmussen warned that Prasad’s leadership could lead to fewer approvals and a decrease in the public’s access to vaccines.

In recent years, Prasad has become a prominent voice in podcasts aligned with the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which often criticizes the FDA for being too closely tied to the pharmaceutical industry.

Prasad’s appointment is sure to cause unease among drug and vaccine manufacturers, as they rely on the predictability and stability of the FDA’s standards to guide their lengthy and costly drug development processes.

Prasad’s leadership at the FDA will likely be a point of contention in the coming months, as debates over vaccine safety and pharmaceutical industry influence continue to shape public health discussions.

Source: AP News – Critic of drug industry and COVID-19 measures to lead FDA vaccine program

The post New FDA Vaccine Head Criticizes Pharmaceutical Industry and COVID-19 Measures appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Big Changes Coming to Cold & Cough Medicines
FDA Moves to Ban Phenylephrine in Pills & Syrups
Consumers Must Turn to More Effective Alternatives

Popular Cold Medicine Ingredient Doesn’t Work, FDA Says

Big changes are coming to your local pharmacy’s cold and cough aisle. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced plans to phase out phenylephrine, a leading decongestant found in hundreds of over-the-counter (OTC) medications, including Sudafed PE, DayQuil, and NyQuil.

The reason? It doesn’t actually relieve nasal congestion.

Despite being a common ingredient in cold and allergy medications, experts have questioned phenylephrine’s effectiveness for years. Now, the FDA has formally proposed revoking its use in oral pills and liquid solutions, meaning drugmakers will soon have to remove or reformulate their products.

Why Is the FDA Taking Action Now?

The decision comes after federal health advisers voted unanimously last year that phenylephrine does not work when taken orally.

Key Findings from FDA Experts:
Large, recent studies found phenylephrine was no better than a placebo at clearing nasal congestion.
Older studies from the 1960s and 1970s that initially supported the drug’s approval were found to be flawed and unreliable.
The $1.8 billion market for oral phenylephrine products could soon disappear.

Important Note: This decision only applies to oral phenylephrine (pills & syrups). Phenylephrine-based nasal sprays will remain available, as they are still considered effective.

What Are the Best Alternatives for Nasal Congestion?

With oral phenylephrine on the way out, what should you use instead?

Pseudoephedrine (Behind-the-Counter)

If you still prefer pills or syrups, you’ll need to ask for medications containing pseudoephedrine (the original decongestant in Sudafed).

Available behind the pharmacy counter (no prescription needed)
Found in Sudafed, Claritin-D, Allegra-D
More effective than phenylephrine

You must show a photo ID to purchase, due to laws preventing its misuse in methamphetamine production.

Nasal Sprays for Fast Relief

• Saline sprays & rinses (e.g., Neti pots) – Quickly clear mucus buildup.
• Nasal steroids (Flonase, Nasacort, Rhinocort) – Best for long-term congestion relief, but must be used daily for full effect.
• Antihistamine sprays (Astepro) – Act faster than steroids for short-term relief.

Why Doesn’t Oral Phenylephrine Work?

According to University of Florida researchers, phenylephrine is quickly broken down in the stomach, making it ineffective before it even reaches the bloodstream.

Dr. Leslie Hendeles, a leading researcher on phenylephrine, explains:
“This is a good drug, but not when it’s swallowed. It gets inactivated in the gut, so it can’t get to the nose.”

Even at doses 400% higher than currently recommended, phenylephrine still failed to relieve congestion. Increasing the dose even more could lead to dangerously high blood pressure, which is why the FDA ruled out stronger doses as an option.

What Happens Next?

The process to remove oral phenylephrine from store shelves won’t happen overnight.

Next Steps in the FDA Process:
6-month public comment period – Consumers & companies can submit feedback.
FDA review & final decision – Could take over a year for drugmakers to reformulate or remove products.
Possible delays – Drug companies may request additional hearings, slowing the process further.

Drugmakers Pushing Back

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which represents drug manufacturers, wants to keep phenylephrine available, arguing that consumers should have the right to choose their medications.

However, researchers like Dr. Randy Hatton (who co-led the FDA petition) disagree:
“Choosing from something that doesn’t work isn’t really a choice.”

What Should Consumers Do Now?

Avoid OTC pills labeled ‘PE’ – They won’t help your congestion.
Ask for pseudoephedrine at the pharmacy counter – It’s still available and works better.
Use nasal sprays & saline rinses – These provide fast and effective relief.
Consult your doctor or pharmacist – They can recommend the best alternative for your symptoms.

With the FDA cracking down on ineffective medications, consumers will soon have better options to actually relieve congestion. Stay informed and choose medications that truly work!

Source

The post FDA Says Popular Cold Medicine Doesn’t Work – Here’s What to Use Instead appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A Breakthrough in Pain Relief

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved suzetrigine, the first new type of pain reliever in over two decades. This non-opioid medication, developed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, provides an alternative for managing acute pain without the risk of addiction.

Marketed under the brand name Journavx, suzetrigine is a 50-milligram prescription pill taken every 12 hours after an initial larger dose.

Why This Approval Matters

Dr. Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, emphasized the importance of this approval:

“A new non-opioid analgesic for acute pain offers an opportunity to mitigate certain risks associated with using opioids and provides patients with another treatment option.”

This move aligns with the FDA’s efforts to combat the opioid crisis by promoting safer pain management alternatives.

How Suzetrigine Works

Unlike opioids, which dull pain by acting on the brain, suzetrigine targets pain at its source by blocking pain-signaling nerves before they can transmit pain messages to the brain.

Dr. Sergio Bergese, an anesthesiologist at Stony Brook University, explained:

“This drug interrupts the pain pathway so that even though the tissue injury exists, the brain doesn’t recognize it as pain.”

Crucially, suzetrigine does not produce euphoria or a “high,” reducing the risk of dependence and addiction.

Inspired by a Rare Genetic Mutation

The breakthrough behind suzetrigine stemmed from a Pakistani family with a rare genetic condition. Members of this family could walk on hot coals without experiencing pain due to a mutation in their sodium channels—the same channels responsible for transmitting pain signals.

This discovery led researchers to develop suzetrigine, which works by blocking a specific sodium channel that only carries pain signals, leaving other sensations like heat and touch unaffected.

Dr. Stephen Waxman of Yale University described it as a major advancement:

“This provides proof of concept that a sodium-channel blocker can reduce pain in humans, opening the door for even more effective medications in the future.”

How Effective Is Suzetrigine?

Suzetrigine has been tested in multiple clinical trials, including:

1. Post-Surgical Pain Relief
   • In two studies with 600 participants, suzetrigine reduced pain as effectively as Vicodin (a combination of acetaminophen and the opioid hydrocodone).
   • Participants reported about a 50% reduction in pain levels.
2. Chronic Pain & Sciatica
   • A smaller study on sciatica patients showed mixed results, with pain reduction similar to a placebo.
   • Vertex Pharmaceuticals insists ongoing research suggests the drug may work for other types of chronic pain, including diabetic neuropathy.

Dr. Kimberley Mauer, an anesthesiologist at Oregon Health & Science University, highlighted the significance:

“The more options we have, the better we’re able to treat each and every patient.”

Availability & Cost

• Pricing: $15.50 per 50-mg pill
• Insurance Coverage: Still uncertain; patient assistance programs will be available

Dr. Mauer cautioned that insurance coverage could impact access:

“It might limit some patients from getting it. We’ll have to wait and see how it plays out in the market.”

The Future of Pain Management

Suzetrigine represents a significant step toward safer pain relief options, particularly as the medical community seeks alternatives to opioids.

With this approval, researchers hope to develop even better non-opioid painkillers, offering relief without the risks of addiction.

Source

The post New Non-Opioid Pain Medication Gets FDA Approval appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced updated rules for labeling foods as “healthy,” marking the first significant changes in 30 years. Under these new guidelines, foods must meet stricter requirements for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars to qualify for the “healthy” label. In addition, these foods must contain nutrients from key food groups like fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy, as outlined in the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

What’s Changing?

Certain foods that once carried the “healthy” label will no longer qualify. For example, white bread, heavily sweetened cereals, and sugary yogurt will no longer meet the new criteria. However, healthier options like nuts, seeds, salmon, olive oil, some peanut butters, and canned fruits and vegetables will now be able to use the label.

The FDA says these updates are in line with the latest nutritional science and will help consumers make more informed food choices, ultimately promoting better health.

Why This Matters

FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf emphasized the importance of these changes, stating, “It’s critical for the future of our country that food be a vehicle for wellness. Improving access to nutrition information is an important public health effort the FDA can undertake to help people build healthy eating patterns.”

The new standards come at a time when most Americans’ diets exceed recommended levels for saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium, and fall short on fruits and vegetables. The FDA also noted that diet-related diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are the leading causes of illness and death in the U.S., contributing to the country’s lower life expectancy compared to other high-income nations.

Impact on Food Manufacturers and Consumers

The “healthy” label will be voluntary for food manufacturers. Those products that meet the new requirements will be able to carry the label starting early next year, while others will have three years to make adjustments.

Jim Jones, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, noted that the new rules could encourage food manufacturers to reformulate their products to meet the updated standards, ultimately leading to a healthier food supply.

In addition to the “healthy” label, the FDA is working on a symbol to help consumers quickly identify foods that meet these new standards. The agency is also exploring a front-of-package nutrition labeling system, which would provide consumers with at-a-glance information about a product’s nutritional value.

Industry and Public Health Support

Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association, praised the updated guidelines, saying they would help consumers feel more confident when choosing healthier foods. However, she also emphasized the need for more comprehensive front-of-package nutrition labels to provide additional clarity for shoppers.

“The FDA’s work on front-of-pack nutrition labeling is so important,” she said. “A system based on the best available science would help consumers quickly identify healthier options.”

These new standards and labeling initiatives are part of a broader strategy outlined by the Biden Administration to improve national nutrition, announced at the 2022 Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health.

Looking Ahead

With these changes, the FDA hopes to inspire food manufacturers to develop healthier products while giving consumers the tools to make better choices for their health. As the rules are implemented, the hope is that they will lead to a broader shift toward more nutritious diets across the country.

Source

The post How New FDA Rules Will Change the “Healthy” Food Label appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The FDA announced Thursday that specialty pharmacies and online companies selling off-brand copies of two popular drugs for obesity and diabetes must phase out their versions by next year.

This decision comes after the Food and Drug Administration confirmed that the nationwide shortage of Eli Lilly’s blockbuster drugs, Zepbound and Mounjaro, has been resolved. The resolution eliminates the need for knockoff versions, which had become increasingly popular among Americans seeking weight loss solutions.

Lilly, which has been urging the FDA to take action for months, scored a victory with this ruling. The decision will likely change how patients access these medications and could affect the cost of treatment.

Resolving Shortages and Impact on Patients

Zepbound, approved for obesity treatment, and Mounjaro, approved for diabetes, both contain the active ingredient tirzepatide. The FDA confirmed Thursday that Lilly’s production of these drugs is now meeting or surpassing demand, effectively resolving a shortage that had lasted for over two years.

Both drugs belong to the GLP-1 class, known for their exceptional weight loss results by reducing appetite and increasing feelings of fullness. While Zepbound and Mounjaro are now in steady supply, competing GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic, from Novo Nordisk, are still facing shortages.

The explosive demand for GLP-1 drugs has led to the rise of compounding pharmacies and telehealth companies like Hims and Ro, which began offering cheaper alternatives. These knockoffs were typically sold online for several hundred dollars per month.

Phasing Out Knockoff Versions

Under the FDA’s new decision, businesses have between 60 and 90 days, depending on their size, to stop selling these off-brand products. The FDA allows compounded versions of brand-name drugs when there is a shortage, but with the supply of Lilly’s drugs now stable, the shift back to authorized medications is expected to improve consumer safety.

The FDA had warned patients last year about issues with the ingredients and formulations of some GLP-1 drugs sold online. Since compounding pharmacies are mainly overseen by state authorities, the FDA’s oversight in this area has been limited. Compounding pharmacies create customized medications by using raw drug ingredients, often for patients with specific allergies or needs. The growing industry has expanded into a multibillion-dollar business, especially amid increasing drug shortages.

The Role of Telehealth Companies

Telehealth companies, which have been aggressively marketing off-brand GLP-1 drugs, are also contributing to the growing demand. These companies operate outside the same marketing regulations as traditional drugmakers, which has led to increased concerns about the safety and quality of the products being sold.

Earlier in October, the FDA had declared an end to the Mounjaro and Zepbound shortage, but faced public backlash and a lawsuit from compounding pharmacies, prompting the agency to reverse its decision.

The new ruling from the FDA ensures that patients will now be able to access drugs that are both safe and properly regulated, marking a significant shift in how these popular treatments will be distributed moving forward.

Source

The post Lilly’s Obesity Drugs: FDA Ends Shortage, Phases Out Off-Brand Versions appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.