What regulations and enforcement actions have the FDA and other agencies taken regarding laetrile and amygdalin products?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal regulators have treated laetrile and amygdalin as unapproved, potentially dangerous products for decades: the FDA has never approved laetrile for any medical use and has repeatedly used warning letters, lawsuits, import and interstate-transport restrictions, and public advisories to curb its sale — even as products labeled as amygdalin or “vitamin B17” persist online and in some retail channels [1] [2] [3].
1. A legal classification that matters: “new drug” and misbranding enforcement
Beginning in the 1970s the FDA deemed laetrile a “new drug” that had not been shown safe and effective, a legal designation that underpins bans on interstate distribution and justified enforcement actions; courts considered but largely sustained the agency’s regulatory authority while some state-level legalization efforts and litigation sought to undermine it [4] [5] [6].
2. Direct enforcement: seizures, lawsuits and court orders against sellers
The agency has litigated to stop commercial sales, obtaining court orders and pressing lawsuits to halt companies that continued marketing laetrile and related products, and federal judges have temporarily and permanently enjoined sales during litigation — a pattern reflected in high‑profile cases and contemporary suits against sellers who marketed laetrile online [7] [8] [3].
3. Regulatory tools beyond criminal prosecution: warning letters and misbranding findings
More routine but widespread actions include FDA warning letters and regulatory findings that products containing apricot kernels, amygdalin extracts, or labeled “Laetrile B17” are drugs when promoted to treat disease and therefore misbranded under section 502(f), a finding that forces corrective actions or removal from commerce unless adequate directions for use and approvals exist [9].
4. Public-health advisories and toxicity evidence that drove policy
Scientific reviews, NCI summaries and clinical trials found no convincing anticancer benefit and documented cyanide toxicity risks, prompting public-health advisories about apricot kernels and amygdalin and reinforcing the FDA’s stance; the combination of inefficacy and safety concerns drove parallel regulatory responses in other jurisdictions, notably European restrictions and bans on medicinal use [1] [10] [11] [12].
5. Persistence of online sales and the limits of regulation
Despite decades of agency action, laetrile- and amygdalin-containing products have repeatedly resurfaced on the internet and in supplement markets; the FDA has focused enforcement on sellers, import channels and marketing claims, but the unregulated manufacture of laetrile abroad (notably Mexico) and online distribution mean products often remain available, complicating enforcement and consumer protection [3] [2] [12].
6. Competing narratives, political pressure, and commercial incentives
Advocates frame laetrile as an alternative “vitamin B17” and point to anecdote and early laboratory work, while critics and regulators point to consistent negative clinical trial results, documented poisonings, and what regulators call sophisticated commercial promotion for profit; historical political campaigns to legalize laetrile in multiple states and court challenges highlight how patient advocacy, libertarian claims of access, and commercial incentives have pressured and shaped regulatory responses [6] [5] [13].
7. What the record shows and what remains unsettled
The documentary record in agency actions and peer-reviewed summaries is clear that the FDA and allied regulators have: never approved laetrile; classified it as a new, unapproved drug; banned interstate distribution; used warning letters and court actions against vendors; and issued public warnings about cyanide risk — but enforcement gaps remain where online sales, foreign manufacture, and supplement labeling persist, and contemporary scholarship continues to debate mechanistic possibilities even as clinical evidence remains negative [1] [4] [9] [10] [12].