BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petition for Statement of Enforcement.
Policy or Rulemaking on Advertisements for Olestra and Olestra-Containing Products
Submitted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest
Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D.
1220 L St. N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20005
April 25, 1996
Office of the Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
6th and Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W.
Washington, DC 20580
Pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(e), and 16 C.F.R. 2.1, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) requests that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) require disclosures in all advertisements for olestra and olestra-containing products that inform consumers of the side effects that may result from olestra consumption.
CSPI is a non-profit consumer organization, supported by 750,000 members, that has worked since 1971 to improve national health policies. We have been especially concerned about the effect of food advertising on consumer health. We contend that advertisements for olestra and olestra-containing products that do not include disclosures informing consumers about the gastrointestinal and nutrient-depleting effects of olestra consumption are false and misleading, as defined by Sections 12 and 15 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act),15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. and deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
We therefore request that the FTC require that all advertisements for olestra and olestra-containing products prominently display a statement, as required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on food labels, that would warn consumers about the side effects of olestra consumption. The FDA has proposed that the label read: "This Product Contains Olestra. Olestra may cause abdominal cramping and loose stools. Olestra inhibits the absorption of some vitamins and other nutrients. Vitamins A, D, E, and K have been added." 61 Fed. Reg. 3118, 3172 (1996). The sentence "This Product Contains Olestra" must be highlighted by bold or extra-bold type. The message is proposed to appear inside a box on the principal display panel or on the information panel of the label. (Petitioner assumes that companies will not put the notice on the product's front panel). The labeling requirement is currently in effect. However, the FDA has requested comments on the need, nature, and scope of the requirement. Id. at 3160. We urge the Commission to issue an interim policy based on the FDA rule and coordinate with that agency as it develops a final labeling policy.
In 1968, Procter & Gamble researchers synthesized a fat substitute that it later named "olestra." Olestra resembles regular dietary fat in taste, texture, and appearance, but passes through the body undigested. Olestra is a sucrose molecule to which are esterified as many as eight fatty-acid residues. Because olestra molecules are so large and fatty, they cannot be metabolized by enzymes and bacteria in the gut, are neither absorbed nor digested, and can bind cholesterol, vitamins, and other fat-soluble molecules. See 61 Fed. Reg. 3118, 3121-3124 (discussion of chemical structure and properties of olestra). Olestra can dramatically reduce the fat and calorie content of the foods in which it is used. Unlike other approved chemical fat substitutes, olestra can be used to prepare fried foods.
In May 1987, Procter & Gamble petitioned the FDA to approve olestra as a calorie-free replacement for fats and oils. 52 Fed. Reg. 23,606 (1987). Procter & Gamble later amended the petition to limit the intended use of olestra to a 100 percent replacement for conventional fats in the preparation of "savory snacks" (i.e., snacks that are salty or piquant but not sweet, such as potato chips, cheese puffs, and crackers). In January 1996, the FDA approved olestra for use in potato chips and other savory snacks. However, the FDA found that even moderate consumption of olestra interferes with the absorption of carotenoids and vitamins and can cause gastrointestinal problems. So although olestra-containing snack foods could conceivably help some people reduce their fat intake modestly, such benefits can only be derived at great cost.
As a condition of its use, the FDA required that all olestra-containing products be labeled with a statement informing consumers of the effects of olestra consumption on the gastrointestinal tract and the absorption of nutrients. Similarly, the FTC should require that all advertisements for olestra and olestra-containing products also disclose these side effects.
II. FACTUAL GROUNDS
A. Side Effects of Olestra Consumption
Upon review of Procter & Gamble's studies, the FDA concluded that olestra affects the absorption of certain fat-soluble vitamins and other nutrients and causes gastrointestinal effects, such as abdominal cramping and loose stools.61 Fed. Reg. 3118, 3144-49, 3159. The FDA also acknowledged the potentially widespread consumption of olestra and noted that since olestra is intended to replace a substantial portion of the diet, it is likely to be consumed in relatively large quantities. Id. at 3167.
The FDA concluded that olestra consumption interferes with the absorption of various nutrients. Consuming modest amounts of olestra -- the amount present in less than one ounce of potato chips -- reduces the absorption of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K. Id. at 3132-47. The FDA also determined that olestra inhibits the absorption of carotenoids, Id. at 3147. a group of plant pigments that seem to play an important, although not completely understood, role in maintaining health. Carotenoids may be valuable in reducing the risks of macular degeneration (the most common cause of age-related blindness), cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and other health problems. Although the FDA determined that available data do not establish with absolute certainty any identifiable nutritional or prophylactic benefits of carotenoids (61 Fed. Reg. 3118, 3149), several studies suggest that carotenoids play an important role in reducing the risks for cancer and other chronic diseases. See Michael Jacobson & Myra Karstadt, Center for Science in the Public Interest, White Paper on Olestra 16-33 (Feb. 29, 1996) (attached as Exhibit 1) for an extensive review of the literature. Moreover, the newest edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans emphasizes the importance of consuming carotenoids. A highlighted box calls attention to "Some good sources of carotenoids" and discusses the importance of carotenoids in a section titled "Plant foods provide a variety of vitamins and minerals essential for health." U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Home-Garden Bulletin, No. 232, 23 (Dec. 1995). Hence, the Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of FDA, apparently considers carotenoids of sufficient importance to encourage people to consume sources of these nutrients, and to state that carotenoids are among nutrients that have a "potentially beneficial role in reducing the risk for cancer and certain other chronic diseases." Consuming as little as eight grams of olestra per day (equivalent to less than one ounce of potato chips) with carotenoid-containing meals causes carotenoid concentrations to fall markedly. 61 Fed. Reg. 3118, 3136.
2. Gastrointestinal Disturbances
The FDA also concluded that olestra consumption can potentially cause significant gastrointestinal problems, such as bloating, loose stools, abdominal cramping, and diarrhea-like symptoms. Although diarrhea was reported as an effect of olestra consumption, the FDA concluded that this symptom did not constitute diarrhea in the medical sense because it was not associated with a loss of water or electrolytes. Id. at 3159. However, Petitioner asserts that the FDA imposed an unnecessarily stringent definition of diarrhea and notes that the definition of diarrhea given to participants in Procter & Gamble's studies was "the frequent passage of watery stools that were difficult to control." Data from these studies indicate that people who consumed the equivalent of 3.2 ounces of olestra potato chips per day had an incidence of diarrhea exceeding 50%. Also, in a 1995 memo, FDA nutritionist Karl Klontz analyzed a new Procter & Gamble submission and essentially concluded that olestra caused diarrhea. Memorandum, Karl Klontz, M.D., Medical Officer, FDA, to Helen Thorsheim, Ph.D., Consumer Safety Officer (Dec. 26, 1995). See CSPI's comment to the FDA, pp. 3-10 (Apr. 1, 1996) (attached as Exhibit 2).
Moreover, Petitioner also asserts that Procter & Gamble's tests on olestra for gastrointestinal effects are inadequate. Though children would be major consumers of olestra-containing foods, the longest study on children lasted just 7 days and used inadequate amounts of olestra. The two studies on healthy adults lasted only 8 weeks and did not examine possible effects of over-eating, poor diets, and various illnesses. Possible effects of olestra on people over 44 years old, malnourished children, and other possibly specially susceptible populations do not appear to have been examined at all. With some consumers, these effects were even experienced at low doses of olestra. 61 Fed. Reg. 3118, 3159. These disturbances are different from the gastrointestinal effects caused by consuming high-fiber foods. The FDA explicitly recognized this difference, noting that while increased gas may result from high-fiber diets, diarrhea-like symptoms have not commonly been reported. Id. at 3153. Also, gastrointestinal symptoms caused by increased fiber often diminish or disappear a short time after people start consuming a high-fiber diet because bacteria in the intestine adapt to the increase in fiber. It has been estimated that the transient fiber symptoms subside within one to two weeks of continuous fiber intake. J.W. Anderson & A.O. Akanji, Dietary Fiber- An Overview, 14 Diabetes Care 1126-1131 (1991); Personal communications with Maureen Storey, Kellogg Company and Kathryn Hosig, University of Arkansas. However, gastrointestinal symptoms caused by olestra consumption persist as long as people continue to consume olestra because intestinal bacteria do not adapt to olestra. In Procter and Gamble's dose-response and vitamin-restoration studies, high percentages of subjects consuming olestra reported symptoms including diarrhea, loose stools, passing gas, and fecal urgency persisting on an intermittent basis for more than 40 days and in some cases the full eight-week duration of the two studies.
Furthermore, the majority of first occurrences of gastrointestinal symptoms resulting from olestra consumption occurred at least one week after consumption began, while the gastrointestinal effects from the consumption of dietary fiber begin the first few days after ingestion of fiber has increased. Moreover, it is inappropriate to compare a food additive that provides no nutritional value -- but in fact interferes with the absorption of important nutrients -- to nutrient-rich foods.
B. FDA's Proposed Labeling Requirement
In recognition of olestra's side effects, the FDA conditionally approved olestra for use in savory snacks in January 1996. Id. Petitioner strongly disagrees with the FDA's conclusions on several grounds and has filed objections to the agency's decision. As conditions of its approval, the FDA requires that vitamins A, D, E, and K be added to olestra and that Procter & Gamble monitor consumption and continue studies on the long-term effects of olestra consumption to be reviewed within 30 months. Id. at 3168. Moreover, the FDA also requires that labels be placed on all food products containing olestra to inform consumers of some of the side effects of olestra consumption. Id. at 3160. The label notice reads:
This Product Contains Olestra. Olestra may cause abdominal cramping and loose stools. Olestra inhibits the absorption of some vitamins and other nutrients. Vitamins A, D, E, and K have been added. Id. The FDA provided a period for public comments and will likely revise the wording.
C. Advertisements for Olestra and Olestra-Containing Products
Following the FDA's approval of olestra, the Procter & Gamble Company sponsored full-page advertisements in The Washington Post, New York Times, and many other newspapers around the country proclaiming the nutritional merits of Olean, the company's trade name for olestra. See Exhibit 3. Petitioner also filed informal complaints about this ad, as well as other misleading Procter & Gamble marketing materials, on January 29 and 31, 1996 (attached as Exhibits 4 and 5).
Petitioner also has concerns about Procter & Gamble's olestra advertisements on the Internet's World Wide Web at http://www.olean.com (attached as Exhibit 6). Like the company's promotional literature, this advertising provides a distorted view of olestra's benefits and risks. Petitioner is particularly concerned about one section of the site entitled "From the Experts." Praiseful quotes about olestra from seven experts are provided. However, at least five of these experts (Gilbert Omenn, William Klish, Gary Williams, C. Wayne Callaway, and John Foreyt) are paid consultants to Procter & Gamble. The ad is misleading, because while the reader is provided with the academic or other affiliation of the expert, the reader is not told that most, if not all, of the experts are paid consultants to Procter & Gamble. Gilbert Omenn, William Klish, Gary Williams, C. Wayne Callaway, and John Foreyt are definitely consultants. If Procter & Gamble quotes its paid consultants, it should be required to disclose that such consultants are indeed paid by the company. The advertisement is headlined in half-inch high letters "NO FAT NO COMPROMISES" and states:
What would you say to potato chips with the great taste you love - but with no fat and half the calories? Oh yes! Now you can have just that...Olestra is a unique ingredient that replaces ordinary fat in foods...But incredibly, Olean adds no fat and no calories.
The ad also displays a chart that compares the fat and calorie content of Olean-containing potato chips with regular potato chips.
Despite the bold proclamations touting the nutritional benefits of consuming olestra, the ad makes no mention of potential side effects or discomforts associated with olestra consumption. This advertisement portends a flood of advertising for Olean, olestra, and olestra-containing products in the future, particularly if companies in addition to Procter & Gamble market olestra-containing products. One industry observer estimates that Procter and Gamble will spend about $10 million in the next year promoting olestra to consumers. Advertising Age, Jan. 29, 1996, at 35. Moreover, Frito Lay, the nation's largest snack manufacturer, has announced its intention to market olestra-containing products. One may safely assume that none of the advertisements will voluntarily inform consumers of olestra's gastrointestinal and nutrient-depleting effects, as required by the FDA on product labels.
III. LEGAL GROUNDS
Pursuant to Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, it is unlawful to engage in "deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." 15 U.S.C. 45(a) (1995). Deception has been defined by the Commission as a material representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably in the circumstances. In re Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 788 (1984), aff'd, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1086 (1987); In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 164-66 (1984). This test for deception originated in a letter from three members of the Commission to Congress regarding the Commission's apparent decision to establish a new definition of deceptive trade practices. Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. 174 (1984) (appended to Cliffdale Assocs.) ("Deception Policy Statement"). A deceptive omission results from the seller's failure to disclose "qualifying information necessary to prevent a practice, claim, representation, or reasonable expectation or belief from being misleading." Deception Policy Statement, supra note 24.
The failure to disclose the gastrointestinal and nutrient-depleting effects associated with olestra consumption in all advertisements for olestra and olestra-containing products is a material omission likely to mislead reasonable consumers and is therefore deceptive.
A. The failure to disclose information regarding the gastrointestinal and nutrient-depleting effects of olestra consumption constitutes an omission of material facts.
To satisfy a finding of deception, the representation, omission, or practice must be "material" to the consuming public -- it must be one that is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service because it involves some characteristic of that product or service that is important to consumers. Cliffdale Associates, 103 F.T.C. 110, 169.
Evidence of materiality may be established by determining whether the representation would be considered important by reasonable consumers and whether the representation interferes with the consumer's right to make an informed choice. Id. at 168. Moreover, when claims involve such important matters as health, materiality should be presumed. Thompson Medical, 104 F.T.C. 648, 816-17 (claims that involve health, safety, or other areas with which reasonable consumers would be concerned may be presumed material). For example, a claim regarding the calcium content of cheese was presumed material by the Commission, as consumers have a significant health concern with regard to calcium consumption. Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct 1254 (1993).
Information regarding the side effects of olestra consumption -- gastrointestinal distress and inhibition of nutrient absorption -- is important to consumers and should be presumed material because these effects pertain to matters concerning health. Moreover, this information is important with regard to the consumer's right to make an informed choice when deciding whether or not to consume such a product.
Although the FDA determined that these disturbances did not pose any "adverse health consequences," 61 Fed. Reg. 3119, 3168 (1996). side effects such as loose stools, cramps, bloating, and diarrhea-like symptoms are at the very least physically uncomfortable. As the FDA recognized, consumers should therefore be provided with information to enable them to associate olestra with the gastrointestinal symptoms that it may cause as this information is necessary to inform consumers of the origin of the gastrointestinal effects and prevent inappropriate medical treatment. 61 Fed. Reg. 3119, 3161 (1996).
Accordingly, the failure of advertisements for olestra to disclose information regarding olestra's side effects is material because this information is of great concern to consumers, affects consumers' health, and impacts consumers' decisions about what foods to eat.
B. The omission of information regarding the gastrointestinal and nutrient-depleting effects of olestra consumption in advertisements for olestra and olestra-containing products is likely to mislead reasonable consumers.
An advertisement may be deemed deceptive if it contains any representation or omission that is likely to mislead consumers who are "acting reasonably under the circumstances." Supra note 24. To determine whether an advertisement is misleading, the FTC should take into account not only express or implied representations, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material with respect to consequences which may result from the customary or usual use of the commodity. FTC Act 15(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 55(a)(1).
A deceptive omission arises from ordinary consumer expectations of the product itself. FTC v. American Standard Credit Systems, Inc., 1994-2 CCH Trade Cas. 70,696 (C.D. Cal. 1994); In re International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949, 1057-59 (1984). Hence, if products pose any health or safety risks, they must be disclosed since consumers generally assume products do not pose such risks. Health risks must be revealed even if only a portion of the consuming public are affected. Porter & Dietsch, Inc. v. FTC, 605 F.2d 294, 303-04 (7th Cir. 1979) cert. denied 445 U.S. 950 (1980); see also American Medicinal Products v. FTC, 136 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1943) (ads for diet products that did not disclose possible health risks to certain individuals constituted an omission of material fact and were deemed deceptive). Even relatively minor physical problems, like skin and eye irritation associated with the use of hair-straightener products or fiberglass draperies must be disclosed. Dee Pridgen, Consumer Protection and the Law, Clark Boardman Callaghan, at 10-36 (1995) (citing In re Lustrasilk Corp. of America, Inc., 87 F.T.C. 145, 151 (1976) (consent decree) (ads and labeling that failed to disclose that hair-straightener products may cause skin and eye irritation were deemed deceptive); 16 C.F.R. 413 (1985) (glass fiber curtains and draperies and curtain and drapery fabrics must disclose by tag or label that skin irritation may result). Potato chips, tortilla chips, crackers, and cheese puffs are considered safe and do not cause the side effects that olestra-containing snacks will cause. Because people do not expect snacks to deplete nutrients or cause gastrointestinal symptoms, it is particularly important that ads for olestra products inform consumers of these potential side effects.
Nutrient depletion and gastrointestinal disturbances result from the customary consumption of olestra. As little as eight grams of olestra per day -- the amount present in less than one ounce of potato chips -- has been shown to cause these effects. See supra p. 4 Unlike the effects of consuming high-fiber foods, these symptoms do not diminish or disappear. See supra notes 15-16 and accompanying text. Hence, ads for olestra or olestra-containing products are likely to mislead reasonable consumers if they fail to reveal facts material with respect to consequences that may result from the customary consumption of olestra-containing foods -- gastrointestinal disturbances and depletion of nutrients.
Moreover, an advertisement may also be deemed misleading if it fails to reveal facts material in light of representations made. FTC Act 15(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 55(a)(1). Hence, ads for olestra and olestra-containing products are likely to mislead in light of representations made regarding the nutritional benefits of olestra by failing to reveal material facts -- that olestra causes gastrointestinal disturbances and interferes with the absorption of nutrients.
For example, the "No Compromises" advertisement contains a chart that makes express nutrient content claims by comparing the fat and calorie content of Olean potato chips with regular potato chips. The ad also makes other express claims, such as "potato chips...with no fat and half the calories" and "incredibly, Olean adds no fat and no calories." Procter & Gamble's trade name for olestra, "Olean," suggests that olestra promotes leanness and is itself an implied claim concerning health. Nutrient descriptors, such as "lean," are subject to the requirements of the NLEA even if they are contained in brand names or trademarks. FD&C 403(r)(2)(c), 21 C.F.R. 101.13(q)(1). All of these claims represent that olestra is healthful and imply that olestra does not pose any deleterious health effects.
The Commission has stated that "when the context of an ad as a whole conveys to consumers the net impression that the food makes only positive contributions to a diet, the failure to disclose the presence of risk-increasing nutrients is likely to be deceptive." FTC Enforcement Statement on Food Advertising, 59 Fed. Reg. 28,388 (1994). For example, advertisements that claimed that Norelco's "Clean Water Machine," a water filtering device, removed contaminants from water were deceptive. The Commission found that the failure to disclose the fact that the product leaked a suspected carcinogen into the "filtered" water was misleading in light of representations that the device would remove organic chemicals and clean the water. In re North American Phillips Corp., 111 F.T.C. 139, 175 (1988) (initial decision). In a case settled in 1992, advertisements for Campbell Soup claimed that some soups were low in fat and thus reduced the risk of some types of heart disease, while failing to mention that these same soups were relatively high in sodium, which is associated with an increased risk of hypertension. The FTC required Campbell's to disclose the sodium content per serving and the recommended maximum daily limit of sodium intake whenever its soup advertisements mention heart disease. In re Campbell Soup Co., Dkt. No. 9233, final consent order (1992). Therefore, it is misleading to omit the material fact that there are nutrient-depleting and gastrointestinal side effects associated with olestra consumption in light of the representation that olestra is healthful.
C. Label disclosures do not correct deceptive advertisements for olestra and olestra-containing products.
Although the labels of olestra-containing products are required to disclose these side effects, it is important to emphasize that label disclosures do not necessarily correct deceptive representations in advertising. Exposition Press, Inc. v. FTC, 295 F.2d 869, 873 (2d Cir. 1961). If the first contact between the consumer and the seller is secured by deception, the law is violated even if the facts are disclosed to consumers before the product is purchased. Carter Products, Inc. v. FTC, 186 F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1951); In re Gimbel Bros., 61 F.T.C. 1051, 1066 (1962). Consumers are not under any duty to make reasonable inquiry into the truth of advertising. Resort Car Rental System v. FTC, 518 F.2d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 1975).
Petitioner recognizes that there are instances in which disclosures are required on product labels, but not in advertising. For example, although warning statements are required on product labels for certain food additives and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, similar disclosures are not required in advertisements. However, significant differences between olestra and these products illustrate unique considerations that necessitate disclosures in both the labeling and advertising of olestra-containing products.
Olestra poses unique considerations that distinguish it from other food additives. First, olestra consumption causes gastrointestinal effects in a significant percentage of individuals and interferes with nutrient absorption in everyone to varying extents depending upon the amount consumed. Supra pp. 3-4. In contrast, aspartame only causes adverse effects in individuals who have phenylketonuria (PKU), a relatively rare health condition found in one out of every 15,000 people, Geri Harrington, Real Food Fake Food and Everything in Between, Macmillan Publishing 49 (1987). all of whom know they are susceptible to the effects of aspartame and, by virtue of their condition, are likely to be under a physician's care.
Second, olestra consumption causes nutrient-depleting and gastrointestinal side effects, even when consumed in moderate amounts. See supra p. 4. In contrast, gastrointestinal effects from the sweeteners mannitol and sorbitol only occur when excessive amounts of products containing these additives are ingested. Therefore, only labels of foods whose "reasonably foreseeable consumption" may result in a daily ingestion of 20 grams of mannitol or 50 grams of sorbitol are required to state that excess consumption may have a laxative effect. 21 C.F.R. 180.25(e) (mannitol); 21 C.F.R. 184.1835(e) (sorbitol).
Olestra may also be distinguished from saccharin, as Congress passed special legislation that allowed saccharin to remain on the market by requiring that warning labels be placed on all saccharin-containing products. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 403(o), 21 U.S.C. 343(o), 21 C.F.R. 101.11. Congress specifically considered, but did not require, warning labels in ads for saccharin-containing products, thereby precluding the FTC from considering this issue. Pub. L. No. 95-203 (1977).
Olestra is also significantly different from OTC drugs, another type of product for which various disclosures are required on labels, but not advertising. First, consumers are more likely to read labels on OTC drugs than labels on snack foods because the very nature of a drug product indicates to consumers that side effects may be experienced. In contrast, since consumers have no reason to suspect that consuming foods such as potato chips may cause side effects, they are less likely to scrutinize the package labels for disclosure of side effects.
Moreover, consumers have more opportunities to read labels on OTC drugs than labels on snacks foods. Since consumers are unlikely to use a drug that is not in its original container, they will always have access to label disclosures. In contrast, since snacks like potato chips are often removed from their original package and served on a plate or in a bowl, consumers may not even have the opportunity to read the label. Disclosures in advertisements would alert consumers that certain snacks may contain olestra and that side effects may be experienced, thereby encouraging consumers who do not have the opportunity to read package labels to inquire whether or not a particular snack contains olestra before deciding whether to eat it. In addition, the FDA distinguished olestra from drugs by acknowledging the fact that olestra may be consumed by the entire U.S. population of 250 million people. 61 Fed. Reg. 3118, 3167.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Petitioner requests that the FTC take action to require all advertisements for olestra and olestra-containing products make clear and prominent Disclosures in print media should be made printed in type at least one-half as large, and in the same style, as the name of the product being advertised. Disclosures in broadcast media should be made at the same volume and in the same cadence as the majority of the advertisement. disclosures informing consumers about the nutrient-depleting and gastrointestinal effects of consumption of olestra.
Director of Legal Affairs
Center for Science in the Public Interest
1220 L St. N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20005