The problem is, where do you draw the line?

Frosted Flakes cures cancer? Is that okay to claim?

If not, why not? What's the difference?

That sort of claims by products that aren't tested for or regulated for what
they claim is one of the reasons we got the FDA in the first place: there's
a risk if you accept that it's okay to tell someone "got high cholesterol?
Ignore your doctor telling you you need to change your diet; ignore your
doctor telling you you need to take a prescription. Just eat Cheerios,
that's all you need." And of course that risk is that people will follow
such claims to their deaths rather than get the treatment they need.

The point of the story isn't "Cheerios need to be prescription." The point
is "you can't make medicinal claims for your product without it being
tested." If the line isn't drawn, you have open quackery----which is in
part what got us the FDA in the first place.

--pig


On 5/13/09 23:05, in article , "Polly
Esther" wrote:

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...wa_05122009.ht
ml


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