or controlled the committee, and whether it was formed “for the explicit purpose of furnishing advice to the Government.” Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 460, 109 S.Ct. 2558; Aluminum Co. of Am., 92 F.3d at 906. Plaintiffs allege that EPA “established” FESTF, but have pointed to no evidence in the record that indicates that EPA or any federal entity actually formed FESTF. Plaintiffs state only that EPA provided FESTF with “collaboration,” and “guidance ... critical to FESTF’s emerging agenda.” (PL’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 16-17.) Even if these allegations were supported by the evidence, which they are not, this would be insufficient to indicate that EPA formed, or “established,” FESTF. See Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 457-58, 109 S.Ct. 2558; Food Chem. News, 900 F.2d at 329, 333 (<HOLDING>). A relationship between a federal entity and a
holding that the defendant must provide facts to establish what the conflict was holding that even if the parties had formed a contract under  2207l the arbitration clause materially altered the contract and therefore did not become part of the parties agreement holding that a machine that allegedly eliminated lumps from womens breasts was governed by the ffdca even though the fda did not require the use of such a machine holding that a food and drug administration publication recommending how and when various drugs should be prescribed is insufficient to establish the standard of care in an action for medical injury resulting from an alleged improper prescription holding that the food and drug administration fda did not establish a committee of scientific experts that was formed by a private organization pursuant to the organizations contract with the fda to provide counsel on product safety