HarrisG.Report assails F.D.A. oversight of clinical trials. The New York Times2007 Sep 28.
4.
HarrisG. F.D.A.Chief writes Congress for money. The New York Times2008 May 14.
5.
GostinLO. Public health law: Power, duty, restraint. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 2000.
6.
521 F.3d 253 (3rd Cir. 2008) citing Hillsborough County v Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985).
7.
21 C.F.R. §314.70(c).
8.
944 A.2d 179 (Vt. 2006).
9.
LabatonS.“Silent tort reform” is overriding states' powers. The New York Times2006 Mar 10; Sect. C:5.
10.
SharkeyCM. Preemption by preamble: Federal agencies and the federalization of tort law. DePaul Law Rev2007;56:227.
11.
KesslerDAVladeckDC. A critical examination of the FDA's efforts to preempt failure-to-warn claims [citing Porter MJ. The Lohr decision: FDA perspective and position. Food Drug Law J1997;52:7–11]. Georgetown Law J 2008;96:461–95.
12.
Requirements on content and format of labeling for human prescription drugs and biological products, 71 Fed. Reg. 3922, 3934 (2006 Jan 24) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 201, 314, 601).
13.
Skidmore v Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
14.
SchweitzerSO. Trying times at the FDA—the challenge of ensuring the safety of imported pharmaceuticals. N Engl J Med2008;358:1773–7.
15.
Food and Drug Administration (US). FDA science and mission at risk: Report of the subcommittee on science and technology. Rockville (MD): FDA (US); November 2007.
16.
WoodAJ. Playing “kick the FDA”—risk-free to players but hazardous to public health. N Engl J Med2008;358:1774–5.
17.
Union of Concerned Scientists. News and views: Scientific integrity update: Dangerous interference in science at the FDA. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists; September 2006.
18.
Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services (US). FDA's review process for new drug applications: A management review. Washington: DHHS (US); 2003.