Don't see my earlier response appear so I'll try to repeat.
The FDA truly needs more guidance at the top. They should be focused on
what foods make it to market that contain melamine or rat poison or who
knows what. I don't have a problem with Cheerios and also Quaker Oats whose
home company is located in Chicago claiming cholesterol lowering ability.
Kinda straining at gnats methinks. Aren't you proud I remembered how to
spell gnats? Polly


"Megan Zurawicz" wroteI don't think that's the point here. The point is
that by saying it lowers
cholesterol et cetera, the FDA is saying "this product WHICH DOES NOT HAVE
TO BE TESTED, AS YOU CALL IT A FOOD is being actually MARKETED AS A
MEDICAL
TREATMENT."

Bottom line is you can't have it both ways: if you want to claim your
product (whether Cheerios or Betty's Framizams or whatever) has medical
benefits, you have to submit it to testing by the FDA as a medication. If
you claim it's exempt because it's a food or a supplement or what have
you,
you cannot then claim it has medical benefits. Because those claims then
stand untested and unproven by anyone.

--pig


On 5/13/09 21:31, in article ,
"NightMist" wrote:



http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Popular..._05122009.html


Yeah.
Right.

I am starting to think that unless something is made entirely of
chemicals that have been extensively tested on kittens, and found to
cause no less than 18 different health problems in at least 50% of the
population, that the government will find _something_ wrong with it
somewhere along the line.

NightMist