FDA Eases Rules on Food Health Claims

zakur · 12th July 2003, 01:00 PM

Quote:

FDA Eases Rules On Touting Food As Healthful

Food producers will be given far more leeway to make claims about the health benefits of their products, the government said yesterday as it announced a far-reaching policy shift presented as giving shoppers information they can use to make smarter choices at the supermarket.

Under the plan, companies will be allowed to petition the Food and Drug Administration for approval to make health claims based on a wide range of evidence. Currently, the agency allows only health claims shown to be conclusively researched and that have achieved scientific consensus, a difficult standard to meet.

Critics in Congress and from some consumer groups charged that the plan, which will also apply to dietary supplements, violates the law and would open the door to confusing and dubious claims supported by weak or inconclusive scientific evidence.

[...]

Under the 1990 law, health claims are allowed only if there is "significant scientific agreement" -- such as statements that calcium prevents osteoporosis or that a diet low in fat and cholesterol can reduce the risk of heart disease.

The issue became clouded when courts ruled that dietary supplement makers could make claims based on scientific research that is not conclusive. McClellan said health claims for foods will now be treated on the same basis as those for supplements.

12th July 2003, 06:42 PM

The problem: Makers of herbals had a lower standard of proof for claims than makers of foods.

The solution: Let everyone use the lower standard of proof!

Does anyone see something wrong with this? Wouldn't a better solution have been to enforce the higher standard of proof for everyone?

Yea, yea, interest groups, etc.

Dr. Imago · 13th July 2003, 02:25 PM

You know the old "once you've let the horse out of the barn" saying? Well, the problem is that the FDA never went back and shut the barn door after the first horse was out. Now, all the rest of the animals are getting out.

Perhaps, in a quasi-Libertarian sense, this is a good thing and will result in more people forcing to adopt the caveat emptor approach. The problem will be for while, though, who to trust. Until the public figures this out, a lot of folks are going to continue to get hurt... now even more so.

-TT

shanek · 13th July 2003, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rwald
Does anyone see something wrong with this? Wouldn't a better solution have been to enforce the higher standard of proof for everyone?

Actually, it seems to me the best solution would be private certification bodies each with their own standards. Let people decide for themselves what level of proof is required for what they want to put in their own bodies.

shanek · 13th July 2003, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
You know the old "once you've let the horse out of the barn" saying? Well, the problem is that the FDA never went back and shut the barn door after the first horse was out.

Did they even have the authority to? It's Congress that makes the laws. The FDA has to do what they're told.

Dr. Imago · 13th July 2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, it seems to me the best solution would be private certification bodies each with their own standards. Let people decide for themselves what level of proof is required for what they want to put in their own bodies.

Oh no... here we go again!

I am not rehashing this argument with you, Shane.

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Did they even have the authority to? It's Congress that makes the laws. The FDA has to do what they're told.

Yes, this is true. Good point. Sorry for botching that. My point should have been, more correctly, that the FDA plays a large part (along with the FTC, the primary executive agency in charge of making sure the law is abided) in enforcing the laws, something they could do a much better job of if they had more man-power, funding... but, there's the pesky Senate appropriations committees rearing their ugly heads again.

In a way, I guess Libertarians, such as yourself, should be happy. This is clearly "less" government. But, my question is at what cost? We can't answer that yet (so, don't try).

-TT

12th July 2003, 01:00 PM	#1
zakur Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 3,265	FDA Eases Rules on Food Health Claims Quote: FDA Eases Rules On Touting Food As Healthful Food producers will be given far more leeway to make claims about the health benefits of their products, the government said yesterday as it announced a far-reaching policy shift presented as giving shoppers information they can use to make smarter choices at the supermarket. Under the plan, companies will be allowed to petition the Food and Drug Administration for approval to make health claims based on a wide range of evidence. Currently, the agency allows only health claims shown to be conclusively researched and that have achieved scientific consensus, a difficult standard to meet. Critics in Congress and from some consumer groups charged that the plan, which will also apply to dietary supplements, violates the law and would open the door to confusing and dubious claims supported by weak or inconclusive scientific evidence. [...] Under the 1990 law, health claims are allowed only if there is "significant scientific agreement" -- such as statements that calcium prevents osteoporosis or that a diet low in fat and cholesterol can reduce the risk of heart disease. The issue became clouded when courts ruled that dietary supplement makers could make claims based on scientific research that is not conclusive. McClellan said health claims for foods will now be treated on the same basis as those for supplements.
	__________________ "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -Thomas Carlyle "That's the problem these days: nobody thinks of the tumors." -steinhenge

12th July 2003, 06:42 PM	#2
rwald Guest Posts: n/a	The problem: Makers of herbals had a lower standard of proof for claims than makers of foods. The solution: Let everyone use the lower standard of proof! Does anyone see something wrong with this? Wouldn't a better solution have been to enforce the higher standard of proof for everyone? Yea, yea, interest groups, etc.
rwald Guest Posts: n/a

13th July 2003, 02:25 PM	#3
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	You know the old "once you've let the horse out of the barn" saying? Well, the problem is that the FDA never went back and shut the barn door after the first horse was out. Now, all the rest of the animals are getting out. Perhaps, in a quasi-Libertarian sense, this is a good thing and will result in more people forcing to adopt the caveat emptor approach. The problem will be for while, though, who to trust. Until the public figures this out, a lot of folks are going to continue to get hurt... now even more so. -TT
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.

13th July 2003, 04:28 PM	#4
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by rwald Does anyone see something wrong with this? Wouldn't a better solution have been to enforce the higher standard of proof for everyone? Actually, it seems to me the best solution would be private certification bodies each with their own standards. Let people decide for themselves what level of proof is required for what they want to put in their own bodies.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

13th July 2003, 04:30 PM	#5
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by ThirdTwin You know the old "once you've let the horse out of the barn" saying? Well, the problem is that the FDA never went back and shut the barn door after the first horse was out. Did they even have the authority to? It's Congress that makes the laws. The FDA has to do what they're told.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

13th July 2003, 06:44 PM	#6
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	Quote: Originally posted by shanek Actually, it seems to me the best solution would be private certification bodies each with their own standards. Let people decide for themselves what level of proof is required for what they want to put in their own bodies. Oh no... here we go again! I am not rehashing this argument with you, Shane. Quote: Originally posted by shanek Did they even have the authority to? It's Congress that makes the laws. The FDA has to do what they're told. Yes, this is true. Good point. Sorry for botching that. My point should have been, more correctly, that the FDA plays a large part (along with the FTC, the primary executive agency in charge of making sure the law is abided) in enforcing the laws, something they could do a much better job of if they had more man-power, funding... but, there's the pesky Senate appropriations committees rearing their ugly heads again. In a way, I guess Libertarians, such as yourself, should be happy. This is clearly "less" government. But, my question is at what cost? We can't answer that yet (so, don't try). -TT
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,050	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.