The more red tape, the worse off we all are.

I can understand the necessity of not making health claims on food product packaging---a lot of consumers are so undereducated that they might actually think that walnuts are a 'cure' for something, rather than part of a balanced diet that might overall reduce their risks of certain problems in the future. Heck, consumers buy homeopathic remedies because their packaging lists "benefits," so I guess if you look in a sympathetic light toward what the FDA's doing, it's understandable.

But it's also ... just not that important, in the scheme of things that the FDA is in charge of.

They published all of this data

link (scroll down for the table)

in 2006, and mentioned to soda companies that "it might be nice if you stopped putting ingredients that form benzene into sodapop that everyone drinks, guys," but the pop companies were able to kaibosh them making any toothed threats. So ... they're all still putting ingredients that form benzene into sodapop, 5 years later.

I think the FDA should focus more on problems like this, and maybe less on the "fine line between healthy foods and drugs," or whatever this walnut thing seems to be. less

Seen any walnuts in your medicine cabinet lately? According to the Food and Drug Administration, that is precisely where you should find them. Because Diamond Foods made truthful claims about the health benefits of consuming walnuts that the FDA didn’t approve, it sent the company a letter declaring, “Your walnut products are drugs” — and “new drugs” at that — and, therefore, “they may not legally be marketed … in the United States without an approved new drug application.” The agency even threatened Diamond with “seizure” if it failed to comply.

Diamond’s transgression was to make “financial investments to educate the public and supply them with walnuts,” as William Faloon of Life Extension magazine put it. On its website and packaging, the company stated that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer. These claims, Faloon notes, are well supported by scientific research: “Life Extension has published 57 articles that describe the health benefits of walnuts”; and “The US National Library of Medicine database contains no fewer than 35 peer-reviewed published papers supporting a claim that ingesting walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce heart attack risk.”

This evidence was apparently not good enough for the FDA, which told Diamond that its walnuts were “misbranded” because the “product bears health claims that are not authorized by the FDA.”



According to the FDA there is no food or natural substance that can improve health in any way shape of form. Anything that has a positive health trait is a drug. This basically means that if you can benefit from something the FDA protected pharmaceutical companies must maintain a monopoly on it and profit handily from it.


Anyway...The FDA made them pull all "misbranded" products from selves and cost them millions of dollars.

What do YOU make of this? less

Quote: "According to the FDA there is no food or natural substance that can improve health in any way shape of form. Anything that has a positive health trait is a drug." This simply isn't true. Things with a great deal of well done, good research behind it CAN make health claims if they are adequately proven. Look at certain fiber cereals, etc. They can make claims of heart health etc and not be considered a drug. However, if they claimed to cure say, impotence and only were able to present "research" that the cereal companies themselves had done, or the research projects only had 3 people in each study or were poorly done, they could not claim that. MANY true health claims are given on food, without having to "Declare" them drugs, as long as it is adequately proven. That proof, however, does not come easily. Why? To protect the public from quackery.

However, too many foods make health claims when most of the "research" is done by one organization, usually funded by the maker or distributor of the food itself.

The FDA makes sure health claims are adequately proven (to the standards to which drugs are held, but the FDA does NOT say that foods which have health benefit ARE drugs!) This proof is necessary to prevent quackery and out right lies. If you look at some of the false health claims made by food and devices in the past (hey, heroin is good for you, and non-addictive! That was one of the claims made by Bayer before the FDA was formed.) you see why claims have to be adequately proven. A few articles, which may not be well done is not proof.

Not to mention the Life Extension Foundation has been purported to engage in quackery and mistruths in the past, (they are the only ones who are able to "prove" most of the claims they make, such as severe calorie restriction for "health") as well the present. They are not an organization many who are well educated in health actually would trust. Seeing as 57 of the supposed "articles" on the life extending characteristics of walnuts came from them, many in health care would be likely to not believe any of them. less

Quote: "According to the FDA there is no food or natural substance that can improve health in any way shape of form. Anything that has a positive health trait is a drug." This simply isn't true. Things with a great deal of well done, good research behind it CAN make health claims if they are adequately proven. Look at certain fiber cereals, etc. They can make claims of heart health etc and not be considered a drug. However, if they claimed to cure say, impotence and only were able to present "research" that the cereal companies themselves had done, or the research projects only had 3 people in each study or were poorly done, they could not claim that. MANY true health claims are given on food, without having to "Declare" them drugs, as long as it is adequately proven. That proof, however, does not come easily. Why? To protect the public from quackery.

However, too many foods make health claims when most of the "research" is done by one organization, usually funded by the maker or distributor of the food itself.

The FDA makes sure health claims are adequately proven (to the standards to which drugs are held, but the FDA does NOT say that foods which have health benefit ARE drugs!) This proof is necessary to prevent quackery and out right lies. If you look at some of the false health claims made by food and devices in the past (hey, heroin is good for you, and non-addictive! That was one of the claims made by Bayer before the FDA was formed.) you see why claims have to be adequately proven. A few articles, which may not be well done is not proof.

Not to mention the Life Extension Foundation has been purported to engage in quackery and mistruths in the past, (they are the only ones who are able to "prove" most of the claims they make, such as severe calorie restriction for "health") as well the present. They are not an organization many who are well educated in health actually would trust. Seeing as 57 of the supposed "articles" on the life extending characteristics of walnuts came from them, many in health care would be likely to not believe any of them. less

I am completely behind calling bullshit on unsubstantiated claims, but the part of this that bothers me is that the FDA wrote this in the letter to Diamond:

"we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs”

That cause them to be drugs? If the claims are bogus, call Diamond out on it. But please do not try to reclassify an edible seed as some type of pharmaceutical, no good can come of that. less