Which specific companies named in the FTC/FDA diabetes warning letters sold gummy products, if any?
Executive summary
The FDA and FTC issued joint warning letters to 10 companies for unlawfully marketing products as treatments for diabetes [1] [2]. Review of the reporting provided shows that none of the sources explicitly identify any of those ten firms as selling “gummy” products; the only product form explicitly noted in the diabetes enforcement coverage is “chewables” for Lysulin, which may or may not be gummies [3].
1. What the agencies announced and who was named
The FDA and FTC publicized warning letters to 10 firms for marketing dietary supplements with claims to cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent diabetes — a joint action repeatedly summarized in agency statements and trade press — and multiple outlets list the companies involved, including Live Good Inc., Pharmaganics LLC, Lysulin Inc., Nuturna International LLC, Phytage Labs, Ar‑Rahmah Pharm LLC, Metamune Inc., Holistic Healer & Wellness Center Inc., Radhanite LLC, and Aceva LLC [1] [2] [4].
2. What the reporting says about product formats — chewables versus gummies
The most granular product descriptions in the corpus identify Lysulin’s lineup with specific formats including “Lysulin Diabetes and Prediabetes Chewables” among powders, liquids and capsules cited by the Miami Herald summary of the FDA letters, but the coverage does not describe those chewables as gummies per se [3]. The FDA’s own summaries and the FTC notice emphasize illegal disease‑treatment claims and safety risks rather than cataloguing confectionery forms, so the official releases in the provided reporting do not affirmatively label any of the ten companies’ products as “gummies” [1] [5].
3. Why the distinction matters and what the sources do and don’t show
“Gummy” is a specific product form that carries distinct regulatory and consumer‑safety concerns (packaging appealing to children, sugar content, dosing variability), but the supplied sources focus on unlawful diabetes claims and potential hidden APIs rather than confection type, leaving a reporting gap on whether any of these diabetes‑claim products were sold as gummies [6] [7]. One trade/industry article does discuss gummy packaging and FDA letters in other contexts — for example, past enforcement letters referencing visible gummy products — but that coverage pertains to other actions and brands, not to the diabetes letters at issue here [8].
4. Firm‑level evidence from the provided coverage: what can be stated with confidence
Based strictly on the assembled reporting, the only firm-product pairing described with a format that could plausibly overlap with “gummies” is Lysulin’s “chewables,” which the Miami Herald lists among Lysulin’s products targeted in the warning letters; no source in the set explicitly calls those chewables gummies [3]. The broader FDA and FTC statements, and subsequent press coverage, do not identify any of the other nine named companies as marketing gummy‑format diabetes products within the cited materials [1] [2] [4].
5. Alternative interpretations, agendas, and next investigative steps
Industry outlets and consumer summaries frame the enforcement as protecting patients from fraudulent disease claims and potential harm [9] [10], while some trade reporting emphasizes regulatory scope and precedent; neither angle supplies definitive evidence about gummy forms among the ten firms’ products. To close the gap, the primary sources to consult are the actual FDA warning‑letter documents and each firm’s product pages or archived product labels, which would show whether any listed “chewables,” “gummies,” or similar confectionery formats were sold (the current reporting does not include full letter text or exhaustive product labeling) [1] [7].