already made a final determination. Contending that remedies such as a citizen petition can take over a year to be resolved, DSC claims this wrongly subjects its members to the risk of future seizures and possible criminal fines. The “futility” and “risk” arguments both stand on the assumption that the FDA has made a final determination regarding the classification of CoQlO. Because we hold otherwise, the most DSC has shown is that the pursuit of administrative remedies may be time consuming. This is insufficient justification for bypassing agency expertise and invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The district court’s dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction is AFFIRMED. 1 . Compare Premo Pharmaceutical Lab., Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 795, 799 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); and Natick Paperboard Corp. v. Weinberger,
holding that the fda did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in refusing to require that a requested warning be placed on a drug label because the fdas determination of what labeling best reflects current scientific information regarding the risks and benefits of the drug involves a high degree of expert scientific analysis recognizing departure from prescription drug rule in the case of oral contraceptives where plaintiff can show that defendant deviated from food and drug administration fda regulations holding that referring the issue to fda would be wasteful and duplicative in case where fda had filed seizure actions after rejecting premos attempt to file drug with agency holding that in light of a worksharing agreement between the state agency and the eeoc a charge of discrimination filed with the state agency was properly filed with the eeoc on the same date holding that fda approval of the entire composition of a drug is irrelevant to the meaning of product in  156a5a