Cheerios, The "New" Drug

[BoberFett]

Label claims are a complex business. Not all claims have to be backed up by direct testing of the product in question, sometimes they can be backed up by ingredients. I'm willing to bet most people here aren't professionally qualified to speak about meeting label claims at all so this is pretty funny to watch both sides.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: OCguy
I'm glad Obama is tackling such pressing issues.

SO you don't have a problem with General Mills making a false claim?

No but I have a problem with the FDA making false claims.

The FDA is completely corrupt, and it shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

FDA scientists not only admit to FDA corruption and mismanagement, but have asked Obama to step in and help solve the problems.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: OCguy
Text

So you're complaining that the buck stopped with Bush previously, and insisting that it stop with Obama now?
I'll just feel a lot better if you come out and admit that you don't base any of this on logical thought.

No, im saying to apply standards equally. I never said the buck shouldnt have stopped with Bush, i'm saying it should stop with Obama as well.

I think youve been snorting Honeycomb with Red Dawn.

And I think you've been partying with El Rushbo. Until now I thought OC in your handle meant Orange County, now it's obvious it means OxyContin.

 

[Lemon law]

Existing law states that when a company makes a health claim about Cherrios, that the claim be backed by scientific evidence. And while its known that some amounts of oats in the human diet can be health, but there are all kind of question on the skimpy amount in only one daily bowl of cherrios being enough to produce any of those benefits.

The difference here is that GWB&co under its FDA choose not to enforce the law, and the Obama FDA is choosing to enforce the law.

And now, the choice for cherrios is binary, either prove the claim with scientific evidence in which case the advertising acceptably meets the FDA claim as a health benefit. Or alternatively quit making the claim in its advertising, in which case, the FDA ceases to have any regulatory authority over cherrios as a drug, and cherrios only falls under normal food regulatory authority.

The somewhat mistake of this thread is to only single out cherrios, a whole spectrum of products are making rather dubious health benefit claims in their advertising, and in fact, some of them end up being removed from the market because they end up as
provably dangerous to human health.

In other words, existing and wise laws will start being enforced once again, and the anomaly was GWB and not Obama.

 

[nakedfrog]

I see all manner of supplements in the store that say "*These statements have not been authenticated by the FDA", would something along those lines be sufficient?

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Existing law states that when a company makes a health claim about Cherrios, that the claim be backed by scientific evidence. And while its known that some amounts of oats in the human diet can be health, but there are all kind of question on the skimpy amount in only one daily bowl of cherrios being enough to produce any of those benefits.

The difference here is that GWB&co under its FDA choose not to enforce the law, and the Obama FDA is choosing to enforce the law.

apart from the obvious attacks there (GWB didnt enforce any laws...hmm oook), your point is correct, the FDA has a right to investigate this if General Mills isnt following the rules and frankly, I have no idea if they are or not. It is strange though, I see all sorts of foods making claims about your health from butter to cereals.

if they are claiming specific % of changes will absolutely occur, then they need to back it up, but I only remember commercials claiming that it 'may help lower cholesterol' and contribute to a healthy heart. If they can prove even the smallest of improvements becuase of a diet around Cherrios, then I dont see a problem.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
It is why you only rarely see things like Cheerios which claim that it helps lower cholesterol. The food itself doesn't, but the high amount of fiber does.

So, you're claiming that the fiber isn't in the food then? Because if the fiber is inherent in the food, then if you eat the food you're guaranteed to get the fiber which would make the claim accurate.

Saying, "The food itself doesn't, but the high amount of fiber does" is like saying that the battery doesn't power your cell phone, the chemicals inside of it do. Technically accurate but ridiculously pedantic in practical use.

ZV

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: OCguy
I'm glad Obama is tackling such pressing issues.

Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?

Well the FDA is under HHS, which is under Obama.


Or are you forgetting that under the last administration, no matter what happened at a federal level, it was the President's fault?

You mean like Katrina and the Iraq War?

Yup. Bush caused Hurricane Katrina. You nailed it. :thumbsup:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Existing law states that when a company makes a health claim about Cherrios, that the claim be backed by scientific evidence. And while its known that some amounts of oats in the human diet can be health, but there are all kind of question on the skimpy amount in only one daily bowl of cherrios being enough to produce any of those benefits.

That would be why the box explicitly states that you would need to substitute two meals a day with a serving of Cheerios and does not claim that simply adding a bowl of Cheerios to your existing eating habits will effect any reduction.

ZV

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: sandorski
General Mills is making absurd Health claims about Cheerios. If they want to make those claims, they need to be properly scrutinized and verified. FDA is just doing its' job.

As to whether GM's claims are absurd or not is certainly up for discussion. That being said, your remarks about what the FDA is up to are correct.

I'll readily admit that I am no fan of Obama or his plans for this country. That being said, this has noting to do with Obama as his version of the FDA is barely getting off the ground. I'm sure folks like me will have plenty to criticize, about the new and improved FDA, in a few months though.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
General Mills is making absurd Health claims about Cheerios. If they want to make those claims, they need to be properly scrutinized and verified. FDA is just doing its' job.

Actually, their claim is backed by many doctors. Anything that is high in soluble fiber is beneficial and will help lower your cholesterol. The freakin' Mayo Clinic agrees. Cheerios are high in soluble fiber and the claim is far from "absurd", in fact, it's pretty darn accurate.

While I agree that, technically, the FDA is just doing its job, the fact is that they are being incredibly pedantic here.

ZV

Their claim goes far beyond saying "beneficial". They are claiming X% decrease in cholesterol over a period of time simply by eating X Amount of Cheerios.

Actually, the claim is that if you substitute two meals a day with a single serving of Cheerios you can reduce cholesterol by an average of 4% in 6 weeks.

The actual claim from the box:

A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol.

The 4% value was the average reduction for people who participated in the study.

A person would have to be a complete and utter imbecile to interpret that as indicating that just adding a bowl of Cheerios to his normal 1/2 pound of bacon every morning would lower cholesterol.

Again, I agree that the FDA is within their rights to demand that the claim be removed from the Cheerios boxes. I think that this is a technicality and that there are far better ways for the FDA to spend its time and effort, but I do recognize the FDA's actions as legitimate within the framework of the law.

ZV

 

[SagaLore]

If you read the FDA letter, it makes sense. General Mills has a lot of marketing hype for the ability of Cheerios to sort of kind of lower a little bit of cholesterol. The letter is commenting on this hype, not on anything in the product.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SirStev0
It is why you only rarely see things like Cheerios which claim that it helps lower cholesterol. The food itself doesn't, but the high amount of fiber does.

So, you're claiming that the fiber isn't in the food then? Because if the fiber is inherent in the food, then if you eat the food you're guaranteed to get the fiber which would make the claim accurate.

Saying, "The food itself doesn't, but the high amount of fiber does" is like saying that the battery doesn't power your cell phone, the chemicals inside of it do. Technically accurate but ridiculously pedantic in practical use.

ZV

my point was more that any high fiber cereal or food will have cholesterol lowering capabilities. There is nothing specfic in the recipe for cheerios that make it better than any of those other options.

Believe me, I think that the current labeling system is a joke and is full of psuedoscience, half-truths, word plays, and loopholes. If the FDA wasn't a bunch of spineless corrupt bureaucrats who have huge investments in both the food and drug industry, we'd maybe have some honest and fair laws.

 

[OCGuy]

It sure is going to be hard to kiester the big box of Costco Cheerios when you get pulled over. Well, for some.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: OCguy
It sure is going to be hard to kiester the big box of Costco Cheerios when you get pulled over. Well, for some.

Duh, what do you think they make those little boxes for?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: OCguy
I'm glad Obama is tackling such pressing issues.

Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?

Well the FDA is under HHS, which is under Obama.


Or are you forgetting that under the last administration, no matter what happened at a federal level, it was the President's fault?

You mean like Katrina and the Iraq War?

Yup. Bush caused Hurricane Katrina. You nailed it. :thumbsup:

You see posts like that is why people think you are stupid.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It is insane to me that a company can come under fire for promoting a food's health benefits. It's FOOD. Cheerios is probably one of the healthiest things most people eat these days. The woman who initially filed the complaint to the FDA was on CNN and she sounded like a Pharma lobbyist about how food shouldn't make health claims and we have drugs to make us healthy.
vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVozLOXtZXk

 

[miketheidiot]

nvm

 

[NoStateofMind]

Obviously we should place a heavy tax on Cheerios.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: OCguy
I'm glad Obama is tackling such pressing issues.

How do you hold up your head?

Probably with a Tongue Depressor

I think it's on a spring.

 

[Bitek]

If you read the letter and understand FDA regulations and how they work, this warning letter is completely justifiable and appropriate, and really no different than nay other that goes out (which is often enough)

General Mills is in violation of several different sections of the CFRs (code of federal regulations)

One is pertaining to labeling requirements when making health claims about a food. There is an approved regulation in regards to the health benefits of whole grains vs cancer and heart disease. The reg requires that all the information of the study be presented, and is limited to the demonstrated health benefits of that study.

GM went far beyond that. They are cited for several violations of labeling requirements, but the warning letter is really addressing their health claim benefits far and beyond what has been proven, thus the requirement for a NDA (new drug app) if they wish to continue making the claim.


GM is not labeling that cheerios can be used as a whole grain in a part of a larger diet, the totality of which has demonstrated efficacy. They are (tacitly) claiming that cheerios has cancer fighting properties beyond colon and stomach (as per the study.) If you've seen cheerios adverts, they are centered around this idea that eating cheerios staves off heart attacks. They go so far as to use tear-jerkers of kids bringing Daddy cheerios so Daddy doesn't die.

That's why they got the warning letter. GM has to A.) revise its labeling to be consistant w/ the CFRs or B.) file a NDA and prove cheerios standing alone provides the medical benefits which its claiming. C.) Ignore the FDA and get shut down.

GM will revise the labeling to be consistent w/ the CFRs.


Now can any of the right wing nuts explain why Cheerios should have special exemption in its labeling and marketing that no other drug or food company gets?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Obviously we should place a heavy tax on Cheerios.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be ridiculousness and distort the true issue, cheerios made an advertising health benefit claim that they did not bother to support with any scientific evidence. They got called called on it, end of story as will any other similar claims.

Now do you support truth in advertising or not? Hate to tell you PC Surgeon, I just got done burying a family friend of mine who took a highly advertised bad drug that resulted in organ failure.

Or maybe you just support any bogus advertising claim as long as it rhymes.

Do you trust your health to Madison avenue add men or medical science?

 

[Bitek]

This is a perfect example of how the kneejerk wingnuts are so stupid at making arguments and completely fail to see the substantive issues.

The real criticism should be "How did the FDA let General Mills get away with this for two years? How was it only discovered after a consumer protection group filed a complaint?" (in Sept 2008, which was under the Bush admin btw ) How many inspectors ate cheerios for breakfast, watched the ads, but it took a outside group to complain to make the light switch on?

Oh yeah, they don't like to do that. They prefer to do the outraged political hacky thing.