FDA says Cheerios Cereal is a Drug

w w w . newsmax.com/insidecover/FDA_cheerios_drug/2009/05/13/213784 . html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Typical bureaucratic idiocy. Cheerios is a drug. I wonder if it will be covered by my prescription plan?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i wonder if "the world best selling cereal" has anything to do with this?
BTW, cheerios is intended as a breakfast cereal, not as a means to lower cholesterol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, but they have studies that show it lowers chlolesterol. What's next. Will orange juice be labeled a drug if juice companies advertise that it has lots of vitamin C? Perhaps milk, chuck full of calcium and vitamin D, promotes stong bones=DRUG!!!!! Iodized salt, prevents scurvy=DRUG!!!! Bread fortified with folic acid helps prevent a variety of birth defects and is labeled with a "healthy pregnancy seal"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Heaven help us!!!! It's another drug!!!

Soon there will be no grocery stores. Just drug stores.

 

The FDA seems to have mismanaged its priorities. I would personally look to pull all aspartame-containing products off the shelves and ban its use, or disallow the fluoridation of drinking water, before concerning myself with Cheerios.

 

they find out that viagra is actually a multivitamin.
they outlaw cars because studies show they are a major cause of accidental death.
they start taxing you for sebaceous oil because its been shown it could catch on fire.
shall i go on?

it will become completely outlawed if it's found to power automobiles

they find milk is over 80% water.
water contains hydrogen that terrorists can extract and fashion into an explosive, therefor anyone possessing milk is a terrorist.

yup, iodine is indeed poisonous.

wrong.
bread can be used to grow ergot.
ergot is one of the precurors of LSD.
yes, bread would be bad.

welcome to the so called "new world order".

 

Well, to be fair, Cheerios is making some lofty claims.

There's also the perspective that Cheerios should not just be allowed to make whatever claims it wants and mislead customers.

This may have less to do with over-regulation than to do with sound regulation.

I agree with the FDA move.

And, I'm sure you know, there's no real movement to label Cheerios as a drug. They're sending a message.

~String

 

Lots of products make lofty claims. Like those X-ray sunglasses advertised in the back of comic books that made it look like you'd be oogling naked women as soon as you put them on:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or the Sea Monkey ads that made it look like they would build an entire civilization in the fish bowl:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or what about those damned Enzyte ads that imply you'll be the next John Holmes if you use their little pill:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or what about the Healthy Pregnancy label mentioned earlier?

Is Cheerio's advertising more misleading than Enzyte's? Or Sea Monkeys? Why does the crack down begin (and end?) with Cheerios?

 

Well, for starters, have you tried Enzyte? BOY OH BOY!

But really. I have no idea about those other things, but Cheerios is a consumable product and makes blatant claims about providing medical health benefits. Clearly this is FDA territory. Enzyte just claims to give you and extra big woodie (which I also believe should be evaluated by the FDA, though my antennae go up at exactly how they'll test the product). Cheerios is leading people to believe that they will lower their cholesterol and whatnot.

It's not that I don't think they shouldn't be able to do it, but I also think that if they are, they should have clear disclaimers posted during the ads and on the box.

~String

 

String is right. It is all in the way they market it. If they just state that it is good and healthy then it should be OK. However, more detailed claims of health effects has to be FDA approved. The cited study itself just makes it worse (in a way) as the FDA has strict regulations on how these clinical trials have to be done. The study in question does most likely not fulfill the standards. And even if it did it would have to be submitted for FDA review rather then merely be published in a journal (regardless whether it is peer-reviewed or not). Essentially, if they sell it like a drug it has to be reviewed like a drug.
Oranges or other natural products do not fall into this category, IIRC.

 

Oh goodness. Has the FDA nothing better to do?

 

mad your a doctor, do you concider oxygen a drug?
it is you know.

There is a difference between a drug and a controled substance (which medical O2 is). A drug is defined as anything which changes the bodies chemistry which means that ANYTHING is a drug, especially food (which is why the FDA makes so much more sence than the way its done in australia with the TGA for meds and the Australiasian food admistration for foods and the arguments between the 2 on whos responcable for alternitive meds, nither want to take responcability)

 

Can we really look past the claims because we think nice things about Cheerios?

Would you suggest, then ... oh. I'll defer to String's point on this.

I mean, of course it sounds ridiculous on its face. Cheerios is not Zicam or muscle-mass protein powder. And it's certainly not an herbal concoction. But, still ....

Perhaps the solution is to not make dramatic claims on package labels?

Well, in this case I would point toward capitalism. And also the strange Santa Clara precedent of 1886. Okay, so corporations are people insofar as they have the same rights. But trying to enforce the responsibilities that go with those rights? Well, it's bad for the economy, isn't it?

It is, to say the least, bad for business.

Those X-ray specs are downright fraudulent. The Sea Monkeys are misleading to say the least. But why has nothing been done about these things before?

"The Economy" has ruled our moral and ethical outlook as an American community for a long time, and look around at where we find ourselves now. Sure, Cheerios isn't Zicam or ExtenZe. I have great respect for the brand, but should we really exempt it simply because I think of it as one of the good guys?

 

simple tiassa, get some decent advertising laws, in australia a product MUST do what its claimed which is why alot of companies have recently got into trouble for making claims they cant substantiate. One example would be the claim of being "carbon netural", if a company makes this claim and it cant prove that the ENTIRE company adds up to a zero net carbon output the ACCC has and will take action against them

 

If only it was so simple ....

Well, that's sort of obvious. But the problem is that the corporations have the right of free speech. And further complicating this is that they are, effectively, protected from the responsibilities that go with that. The result is that as we tighten the screws on advertising, the companies will complain that their free speech is violated, and they will have many friends in the Republican Party who will say it's bad for the economy to make these entities be honest.

 

tiassa, whats with the quote?
im ASSUMING your quoting my above post but what you actually quoted i never said and i dont belive it was even said in this thread

 

BTW even in the US there are limits to free speach. You cant lie in a court and claim its free speach, you cant yell fire in a cinima and claim its free speach, and you cant commit fraud and claim its free speach. Seems to me its not the consitution which is the problem, its enforcement of existing fraud laws

 

Do you remember this one?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Whoops ... damn

Whoops. My bad. Sorry 'bout that. Sometimes my C&P doesn't work right. Or else I'm hitting V instead of C. Either one. I've fought with my computer over it before. Obviously, I wasn't paying close enough attention.

Apologies.

 

Ah the Corporation.
That was a good doco.

And who the hell allowed it to become a legal person ?