FDA says Cheerios is a drug

[Invictus ChiKen]

Link

EDITORIAL: Uh-oh, Cheerios

The FDA says the cereal is a drug

By | Sunday, June 21, 2009

The latest verdict from the Food and Drug Administration is that Cheerios is a drug. Parents, then, must be drug pushers.

The FDA sent a warning to Cheerios maker General Mills Inc. that it is in serious violation of federal rules.

"Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease" the FDA letter said. "[Cheerios] may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application."

If the FDA were to win its enforcement action against Cheerios, all the boxes would have to be pulled from grocery-store shelves, and children could only get their morning "fixes" with a prescription from their doctors.

Two claims on the Cheerios cereal box upset the FDA: "Cheerios is clinically proven to reduce cholesterol 4 percent in 6 weeks" and, "Cheerios can help reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, by lowering the 'bad' cholesterol."

Susan Cruzan of the FDA's press office told The Washington Times the FDA is not objecting to the fact that clinical studies do, in fact, find that Cheerios do what General Mills claims. What concerns the FDA, according to Ms. Cruzan, is, "This is a food product, and they do have a health claim." Specifically, the agency objects to the preciseness of the claims, which she says would make the product classified as a drug. General Mills "could say 'heart disease,' but they are being specific and saying 'coronary heart disease,' " she explains.

Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, applauds the FDA's determination and cautions that Cheerios is a "21st-century version of snake oil" that "could dissuade consumers from following proper medical advice on taking cholesterol-lowering drugs and proper dietary advice." The harm supposedly is that customers will read the label as saying that if they eat Cheerios, they can eat bad things in their diet and still get the benefits Cheerios claim.

This is a prime example of the nanny state running amok. Only the government would work to classify a breakfast cereal as a drug for the offense of having correct information on its label.

Obviously big Pharma is at it again!

[Oskuro]

This is a prime example of the nanny state running amok. Only the government would work to classify a breakfast cereal as a drug for the offense of having correct information on its label.

Aaaaaaaaand there goes the article's credibility!

The FDA's actions do seem ridiculous in this particular case, but what the article misses is the point of their actions. It is not to attack Cheerios, or to classify breakfast cereal as a drug, it is to make sure that food items do not lead to consumer error by claiming to be healthy.

Even if the benefits of Cheerios are proven, wich seems to be the case, there should be enough information to make it clear to the consumer that eating Cheerios alone won't be enough. Around here, even cereal boxes include a full nutritional chart, and dietary recomendations (as well as suggestions to exercise). Of course the manufacturers try to downplay the bad and promote the good for the sake of marketing, but having comprehensive and correct (that is, regulated) information hasn't caused the decline of breakfast cereal in these parts.

Besides, if there's a breakfast cereakl that should be classified as a drug, that's Cocoa Puffs. Man, that bird needs help.

[PeZook]

The article, summarized in three sentences:

"Ha, ha, look at stupid government people do a ridiculous thing! And you know it's ridiculous, because we say so! Free market FTW!"

I especially liked it how they wrote "Parents, then, must be drug pushers!", as if the FDA wants to go around throwing parents in jail for feeding Cheerios to their children, as opposed to forcing the producer into changing the packaging slightly.

Because it's bad for the government to enforce high standards for food and drug advertising, right? RIGHT?

[Solauren]

Quite frankly, the FDA is 100% correct in this case.

The labeling on the box is TOO exacting. If they had it on their website instead, and the book said "Part of a healthy lifestyle. visit us as.... for more info', that would be different.

And anyone that thinks otherwise needs a good swift kick in their junk. (Brains or groin)

[General Trelane (Retired)]

If the FDA were to win its enforcement action against Cheerios, all the boxes would have to be pulled from grocery-store shelves, and children could only get their morning "fixes" with a prescription from their doctors.

No. General Mills will simply restyle their packaging.

Aaaaaaaaand there goes the article's credibility!

Well, it is an editorial. Who expects objectivity in an editorial?

[General Zod]

Aaaaaaaaand there goes the article's credibility!

The FDA's actions do seem ridiculous in this particular case, but what the article misses is the point of their actions. It is not to attack Cheerios, or to classify breakfast cereal as a drug, it is to make sure that food items do not lead to consumer error by claiming to be healthy.

Even if the benefits of Cheerios are proven, wich seems to be the case, there should be enough information to make it clear to the consumer that eating Cheerios alone won't be enough. Around here, even cereal boxes include a full nutritional chart, and dietary recomendations (as well as suggestions to exercise). Of course the manufacturers try to downplay the bad and promote the good for the sake of marketing, but having comprehensive and correct (that is, regulated) information hasn't caused the decline of breakfast cereal in these parts.

Or they can simply make minor changes to their packaging to comply with FDA regulations and avoid having to go through the costly approval process that anything claiming to have definitive medical benefits requires. This is really a non-story.

[dragon]

All they need to do is add the word might in from of their statments. Then the ceral would be the same as the over the counter herbal remedies that aren't indorsed by the FDA.

[Stark]

Amusingly, consumer protection and laws against making inaccurate or misleading claims = NANNY STATE in America.

[PeZook]

Amusingly, consumer protection and laws against making inaccurate or misleading claims = NANNY STATE in America.

Of course, don't you know that if companies tried to lie to consumers, they'd go bankrupt?

The funny thing is that the editorial won't cite one of the countless cases where FDA's anal retentiveness led to actual increase in safety: the author selected what seems to be the most ridiculous example and tried to use it to show the government is too overbearing in all things

Way to use logical argumentation!

[Sea Skimmer]

The FDA has been cracking down on illegal labeling like this on all manner of products from food to pesticides over the last year. Its something that is very long overdue and unfortunately barely publicized at all even when the FDA mandates recalls of products already sold.

[PeZook]

The FDA has been cracking down on illegal labeling like this on all manner of products from food to pesticides over the last year. Its something that is very long overdue and unfortunately barely publicized at all even when the FDA mandates recalls of products already sold.

I think this got the editor's attention because Cheerios is widely regarded as completely harmless, and thus the FDA cracking down on the packaging is easy to sell as ridiculous, thus advancing the author's agenda.

Not to mention his other tricks, like completely twisting what the FDA's crackdown actually means for the producer.