Seriously? FDA says walnuts are drugs.

[David43515]

Diamond Walnut Co. got nailed by the FDA for publishing studies that claim the addition of walnuts to your diet can be healthy. The FDA told them that they have to get walnuts approved as a drug AND come up with instructions for use and dose by medical personel.



http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8294-walnuts-are-drugs-says-fda

There are times I`m glad I live in the third world. (yeah, yeah. Whatever. I live here, trust me. Japan is a third world country in a nice suit.)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I thought the same thing at first - I even posted it on my FaceBook. Then I started looking into it. Sadly, it is not as outrageous and funny as I first thought it was. As usual, it's an intentional exaggeration by right-wing blogs that want to create outrage. It's not even current - it's over a year old:

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825.htm

From what I can follow - and it's fairly thick governmentese - the FDA is telling a walnut company that if they are going to cite studies to make health claims, then they are putting their product in the realm of drugs, and drugs are regulated.

It's not that much different than the companies that advertise on late-night TV and sell pills that claim to make your phallum bway bway bigger, longer and etc. If you're going to make medical claims, then you are selling a drug, because medicines are drugs and drugs are regulated. Remember 'Head On'? It was a company that was VERY CAREFUL not to say what it was that it did. They made NO claims. They let people draw their own conclusions. Pretty clever, considering that (as I recall), someone had it analyzed and it was made of wax. Nothing else, just wax. Yeah, put that on your forehead.

So if the walnut company is going to say that walnuts are good for you, then you have to be able to prove it. If you say it cures certain illnesses, then it is medicine, and that makes it a drug.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/QualifiedHealthClaims/ucm072910.htm

It apparently is something called a 'Qualified Health Claim'. It's complex stuff. But it's not quite as fatheaded and idiotic as the usual bungling government bureaucratic nightmare. It's not even a big deal. And the FDA definitely did not declare walnuts to be drugs. That's just crazy right-wing blog talk designed to freak people out. I have to admit, I fell for it at first, too.

 

[punisher73]

I agree with Mr. Mattocks. The FDA makes some pretty weird decisions. It was probably a year or two ago when a cereal (Cheerios) I think that got in a bind because they put on their box that the fiber content in their cereal was shown to reduce heart risk and cholesterol.

The FDA's OFFICIAL position is that food can not "cure" a disease. Which, to me it bullcrap of the highest degree...why you may ask? What is the cure for scurvey? Eating vitamin C as found in citrus fruits. You don't need a drug to take care of it. I don't see a problem with stating that "studies have shown" a food to reduce the risk.

And this from the same agency that brought you "aspartame" after it was initially rejected for human consumption and then a buyout of the research facility and a "new test" and cash donation, and then voila! It's safe for humans now.

Here's another one...Asprin kills between 500-1000 people a year, yet it is legal and approved by the FDA. Ephedrine, was shown to be a very effective herbal weight loss supplement and helped thousands of people who used it CORRECTLY. Drug companies start losing money on their drugs and campaign the health dangers of it and now it is illegal. Again, the FDA is run by money and I don't listen to what they have to say on most topics.

 

[granfire]

I agree with Mr. Mattocks. The FDA makes some pretty weird decisions. It was probably a year or two ago when a cereal (Cheerios) I think that got in a bind because they put on their box that the fiber content in their cereal was shown to reduce heart risk and cholesterol.

The FDA's OFFICIAL position is that food can not "cure" a disease. Which, to me it bullcrap of the highest degree...why you may ask? What is the cure for scurvey? Eating vitamin C as found in citrus fruits. You don't need a drug to take care of it. I don't see a problem with stating that "studies have shown" a food to reduce the risk.

And this from the same agency that brought you "aspartame" after it was initially rejected for human consumption and then a buyout of the research facility and a "new test" and cash donation, and then voila! It's safe for humans now.

Here's another one...Asprin kills between 500-1000 people a year, yet it is legal and approved by the FDA. Ephedrine, was shown to be a very effective herbal weight loss supplement and helped thousands of people who used it CORRECTLY. Drug companies start losing money on their drugs and campaign the health dangers of it and now it is illegal. Again, the FDA is run by money and I don't listen to what they have to say on most topics.

Exlax....100 year old formula....a study in rats showed something....

 

[Nomad]

Here's another one...Asprin kills between 500-1000 people a year, yet it is legal and approved by the FDA.

Aspirin, along with many other marketed drugs (Tylenol, Cisplatin, and so on) would never ever pass the safety bar that the FDA has in place currently for the approval of new drugs. It (and a great deal of other drugs) have stayed on the market because long-term use has shown that the benefits of having these drugs available outweigh the risks.

Overall, the tighter controls on new drug approvals are probably a good thing, as it means that new drugs are generally safer (in terms of acute reactions and side effects) than many of the old staples. At the same time, it means that many compounds with the potential to help a very large group of people have been disallowed because of the possible detrimental effects to a much much smaller group. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you believe Spock or Kirk (The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or vice versa)

Also, the side-effect profile deemed "acceptable" varies according to what you're treating; if you're attacking a particularly virulent cancer that tends to kill people in a short time, you can have a lot more negative side effects caused by that drug (provided that it's effective on slowing or halting the progression of the cancer) than if you're treating something like Type II Diabetes, where it's assumed that the patients will likely be taking the medication for many years to come. In the latter case, any side effects may be enough to kill the compound's potential as a drug.

 

[cdunn]

I thought the same thing at first - I even posted it on my FaceBook. Then I started looking into it. Sadly, it is not as outrageous and funny as I first thought it was. As usual, it's an intentional exaggeration by right-wing blogs that want to create outrage. It's not even current - it's over a year old:

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825.htm

From what I can follow - and it's fairly thick governmentese - the FDA is telling a walnut company that if they are going to cite studies to make health claims, then they are putting their product in the realm of drugs, and drugs are regulated.

It's not that much different than the companies that advertise on late-night TV and sell pills that claim to make your phallum bway bway bigger, longer and etc. If you're going to make medical claims, then you are selling a drug, because medicines are drugs and drugs are regulated. Remember 'Head On'? It was a company that was VERY CAREFUL not to say what it was that it did. They made NO claims. They let people draw their own conclusions. Pretty clever, considering that (as I recall), someone had it analyzed and it was made of wax. Nothing else, just wax. Yeah, put that on your forehead.

So if the walnut company is going to say that walnuts are good for you, then you have to be able to prove it. If you say it cures certain illnesses, then it is medicine, and that makes it a drug.

This is pretty much it: If you are going to make claims, put up the evidence, or shut up. This is one of the essential purposes of the FDA: To keep food and drug manufacturers from outright lying to you in the name of profit.

It is heavilty stymied in its efforts, however, by certain industries. Head-On is actually a pretty good example; as a homeopathic medicine, it was functionally written into the Act that estabished the FDA by Royal Copeland, a Senator and homeopath. As such, it is essentially unregulatable, and continues on the market despite the fact that it is essentially the practice of sympathetic magic, and unable to help, or harm, save through inaction. Herbals are in a similar place, marketing as 'food and supplements' under laws carved out for them by actors such as Orrin Hatch. Meanwhile, we've forgotten the days of things like Hamlin's Wizard Oil - Grain alcohol, choloroform, turpentine and ammonia, for the cure of cancer -and- rabies.

It is important to recognize, as the medical establishment generally does, that there are 'diseases' of nutritional defiency, as well as poor levels of nutrition. It is important to recognize that there are real allergies, and that diet can be a risk factor in certain diseases. But it also needs to be recognized that, while an antiviral chemical is present in trace amounts in them, eating bananas does not cure AIDS and eating wheat does not cause autism. Claiming otherwise is a potentally fatal risk to those who don't have the background, time, or inclination to learn significant amounts about medicine. But if you're going to market medicine, you can't decide not to call it medicine just because it tastes good. Or comes from a tree.

 

[billc]

I can't wait till they have absolute control over our healthcare. Real or not the more government gets involved the more confusing and screwed up things get.