Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Labeling topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pharmacist urges state board to set legibility standards for auxiliary prescription labels

California State Board of Pharmacy · June 24, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A pharmacist told the California State Board of Pharmacy that critical auxiliary warning labels are often printed in tiny, compressed type and urged the board to start a rule or guidance process setting minimum legibility standards; board members agreed to consider adding the topic to a future committee agenda.

Steve Rosati, a pharmacist from Hollister, told the California State Board of Pharmacy during public comment that auxiliary prescription warnings — labels such as “take with food,” “do not drive,” or eye‑drop wait times — are frequently unreadable and pose a patient‑safety risk. “These warnings do become practically invisible,” Rosati said, explaining he brought illustrative bottles from his own home and recommended minimum legibility standards: a six‑point minimum font, bold text, avoidance of compressed lettering and removal of unnecessary data such as DEA numbers or advertising.

The board’s president, Son O, thanked Rosati and directed staff to consider the issue for a future agenda and to determine which committee (likely licensing) should take it up. Members on the dais echoed Rosati’s concerns, with one member saying the small print can make “some of the most important part of medication labeling…nearly impossible to read.”

Why it matters: Auxiliary labels carry safety instructions that patients rely on between clinical visits. Board members said improving legibility could reduce medication errors and help patients with limited vision or health literacy. The board did not adopt formal regulatory text at the meeting; members asked staff to identify next steps and whether the licensing committee or another body should draft proposals for board consideration.

What happens next: Staff will evaluate options for follow‑up (rulemaking, guidance, inspection emphasis) and return with a recommendation identifying the appropriate committee and potential action timeline. The board encouraged written public comment and suggested stakeholders could provide sample labels and measurements to support any proposal.

Attribution whitelist: Steve Rosati (pharmacist); President Son O (board president); Jesse (board member).