Jump to content

Welcome to Grasscity Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Grasscity.com 420 Sale - 25% Discount

FDA says that "Cheerios" is bad for you.


  • Please log in to reply
 

#1
wackdeafboy

wackdeafboy

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 7,245 posts
What's next? "Water is bad for you so drink this rum all day." :rolleyes:

Link

Food and Drug Administration slapped General Mills Inc. with a warning over its Cheerios cereal, saying the box's claims about heart benefits contain "serious violations" of federal law. In a May 5 warning letter sent to the company and posted on the FDA's Web site Tuesday, the agency said statements that the product is "clinically proven to help lower cholesterol" make the product a drug under federal law.







Stephen Sundlof, the director of the FDA's food-safety center, said the agency has noticed a tendency by food companies to cross the line into the drug category by making specific health claims on packaging.
He said the FDA is ready to send out more warning letters if it finds more violators, although it has "no specific campaign" to go after food manufacturers.
General Mills spokesman Tom Forsythe said the Cheerios box's message saying the cereal can "lower your cholesterol 4% in six weeks" has been used for more than two years. The box cites a clinical study involving Cheerios as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol.
Mr. Forsythe said the broader claims on the box about heart health have been permitted by the FDA for 12 years. "The clinical study supporting Cheerios' cholesterol-lowering benefit is very strong," he said.
The FDA said such specific cholesterol-lowering claims can be made only for drugs, and it suggested that if General Mills wants to keep the box labeling as is, it should file a new-drug application for Cheerios.
Mr. Forsythe said the company would work with the agency to reach a "resolution" on the Cheerios labeling.
"We try to make a bright line here between what can be said about a drug and what can be said about a food," said Dr. Sundlof. He said a more general claim about reduction in heart-disease risk from eating whole-grain foods may be permissible as long as specific language is used.
The FDA also took issue with a company-sponsored Web site mentioned on the Cheerios box. The Web site discusses the benefits of eating whole grains, but the FDA said some of the health claims about reducing cancer and heart-disease risk don't comply with agency rules.
The FDA said General Mills must "promptly" correct the violations outlined in the letter or the agency could take enforcement action, such as seizing products.
Dr. Sundlof said the FDA's review of Cheerios was prompted by a September 2008 letter from the National Consumers League that expressed concerns about the labeling on Cheerios.
The FDA isn't the only Washington agency in the Obama administration taking a close look at food makers' health claims. Last month the Federal Trade Commission settled a complaint with Kellogg Co. involving claims that its Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal was clinically shown to improve children's attentiveness by nearly 20%.
FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said the commission would start paying more attention to national advertisers.
The FDA is showing signs of taking a more aggressive stance toward the companies it regulates under acting Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, who is slated to become principal deputy commissioner once President Barack Obama's nominee for commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, is confirmed.
Dr. Sharfstein wrote a letter to lawmakers released this week saying he wants to review the agency's approval in the final days of the Bush administration of a knee device. The device was cleared over the objections of several scientists and managers at the agency.



#2
Salvial

Salvial

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,628 posts
This is ridiculous. The cheerios thing I don't care much about specifically. But I definitely see this as part of a broader agenda. This out of control agency needs to be put in their place!

#3
garrison68

garrison68

    A Head Of Our Times

  • Bronze Member
  • 11,295 posts


#4
pineapple skunk

pineapple skunk

    1989

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,260 posts
well

they didnt exactly say it's bad for you, they just noticed that it doesnt provide all the heart benefits that general mills claims it does

but then i read on about the FDA seizing products and shit, which is COMPLETELY unnecessary, so fuck the FDA yet again

#5
Industrial

Industrial

    Revolution

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 410 posts
They're saying that such claims would qualify cheerios not as a food, but as a drug, whether the so-called "clinical studies" are legitimate or not.

#6
maxrule

maxrule

    keeper of the faith

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 6,224 posts
I remember hearing a lady warn about this four or five years ago on Art Bell.

She was warning that the World Health Org and the FDA were planning to make essential vitamins a controlled substance. She went so far as to say that even apples would be tightly controlled. The idea is that a sick and unhealthy society requires more government and pharmaceutical dependency.

I guess she turned out to be right because the WHO is forcing us to implement Codex Alimentarious at the end of 2009.

Cheerios Conspiracy & FDA Corruption

Is the FDA’s attack on Cheerios motivated by political donations? Lobbying matters, don’t kid yourself. 2008 reports from Bongs and Glass Pipes - Grasscity.com

Total For Food Processing & Sales: $6,700,516— Subtotal for Parent General Mills: $769,300— Total For Crop Production & Basic Processing: $5,265,275— Subtotal for Parent Food Marketing Institute: $6,248,130— Subtotal for Parent Smithfield Foods: $350,000— Total For Poultry & Eggs: $841,342— The United Egg Producers $80,000— Subtotal for Parent National Chicken Council: $120,000.

The numbers pale in comparison to the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products lobby efforts pending, $235,315,408, the subtotal for Parent Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America: $20,220,000. Frig that knowledge is power- money talks. The money trail to who has the power over what you eat must certainly be influenced by the FDA who’s member have ties primarily to the pharmaceutical industry- not the agricultural, egg, pork, dairy, chicken industries. “Recent press reports revealed extensive evidence of serious wrongdoing by Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, Dr. Frank M. Torti, top FDA attorneys, center and office directors, and many others in prominent positions of authority at FDA. As a result, Dr. Frank M. Torti, acting commissioner and the FDA’s first chief scientist, abruptly left the Agency,” writes http://www.theepocht...ent/view/16742/



#7
garrison68

garrison68

    A Head Of Our Times

  • Bronze Member
  • 11,295 posts


#8
garrison68

garrison68

    A Head Of Our Times

  • Bronze Member
  • 11,295 posts

Edited by garrison68, 16 May 2009 - 01:19 AM.


#9
kokopelli

kokopelli

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 793 posts
The same people that told you Aspartame is safe is sending warnings to cheerios about a label? Why is reality looking more and more like Alice in Wonderland?

#10
Industrial

Industrial

    Revolution

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 410 posts

Let me get this straight: You're in favor of allowing food companies sell snake oil to the public, and it would be better is these companies were self-regulated and no government enforcement was used. If some body has a serious life-threatening condition from eating, say, peanuts, and a product does not list it on the box, the FDA is wrong to seize those products to keep those who may die from it from getting poisoned.

The world of business, finance, and health is more complicated than your idealism takes into account. There are such things as greed, corruption, human error, and corporate crime - and all of them are wrapped in lies and untruths.


On one hand you have the libertarian who is opposed to anything related to government. In his eyes, government is bad, and the private sector is good.

On the other hand, you have the statist who defends the government from the crimes of the private sector, saying that we need government regulation in the market.

Both are ideologies that came out of the capitalist class. Different sections of the bourgeoisie, bickering amongst themselves on how to best run capitalism, but the system is beyond reform.

The state is not simply a neutral arbiter, it is an instrument of class dictatorship and domination. It's the apparatus of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In no way does it look out for the good of the public, or human needs. It only cares about protecting capitalism, the capitalists, and their wealth and power, either from themselves or capitalism's own grave diggers, the proletariat.

#11
garrison68

garrison68

    A Head Of Our Times

  • Bronze Member
  • 11,295 posts


#12
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

If General Foods can prove, to an impartial group of experts, that their product Cheerios prevents cancer and heart disease, then they should be able to say so - but I strongly doubt that these claims can be proven. Until they can do so, I say don't let them advertise that Cheerios can accomplish these things.


It would really help if you read the article.

Mr. Forsythe said the broader claims on the box about heart health have been permitted by the FDA for 12 years. "The clinical study supporting Cheerios' cholesterol-lowering benefit is very strong," he said.

The FDA said such specific cholesterol-lowering claims can be made only for drugs, and it suggested that if General Mills wants to keep the box labeling as is, it should file a new-drug application for Cheerios.



It has nothing to do with the health claims, it has do to with the FDA trying to get Cheerios classified as a drug... for some reason.

#13
Guest_letsgetPOD_*

Guest_letsgetPOD_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In
These people are crazy, the FDA, the food and drug administerers need to be abolished as well as half the other crooked govt agencies. What are they doing letting aspartame and msg be allowed in foods. Who the fuck regulates them.

#14
garrison68

garrison68

    A Head Of Our Times

  • Bronze Member
  • 11,295 posts

Edited by garrison68, 16 May 2009 - 03:50 AM.


#15
G-MAN

G-MAN

    Casual Toker

  • Old School
  • 1,847 posts
After smoking all the confiscated weed they need cereal, who can blame them?
  • maxrule likes this

#16
Geek

Geek

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
the fda is just doing its job by pointing out that the cheerios' box label has very specific claims for improving health (much like a drug). why did they do it? because if one food product is allowed to advertise its particular, and alleged, health benefits, then it sets a risky precedent for others to do the same. cheerios may very well ""lower your cholesterol 4% in six weeks," but it needs to be made clear that when someone has a problem with their cholesterol, they cannot simply rely on eating a cereal as a treatment. it's pretty important that drugs are the only products allowed to make such particular claims. this whole thing really isn't a big issue.

#17
Budder81

Budder81

    OddBall

  • Old School
  • 3,363 posts
Looks like Cheerios forgot to pay the FDA bribe money.

#18
garrison68

garrison68

    A Head Of Our Times

  • Bronze Member
  • 11,295 posts


#19
Salvial

Salvial

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,628 posts
The cheerios claim is specific and insignificant. But this opens doors for them to start saying hemp seed oil needs to apply for a drug application if it ever wants to highlight any of its benefits.

Edited by Salvial, 16 May 2009 - 06:57 AM.


#20
BubbleFunker

BubbleFunker

    Female Canna-Maniac

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,869 posts
Why would you trust anything about the FDA? They have approved more foods and drugs that have killed people than the military, in my opinion.

The only people the FDA answers to are the pharmaceutical companies and their money.
They don't give 2 shits about our well being.

Until they remove all truly harmful things from our foods and drugs, I don't trust anything they say.

I believe they should be put on trial for crimes against humanity, quite frankly.
In fact, most of our federal government should be thoroughly inspected for infractions and crimes against the people.

Imagine. . .
  • aaronman likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users