Cheerio to Cheerios?

This morning as I dined on Gluten Free Rice Chex, my breakfast cereal of convenience, and checked the news I was startled to learn that the FDA is cracking down on Cheerios.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/fda-takes-cheerios-task-boastful-labels/. Yep.  The FDA had this to say :

                                             “Based on claims made on your product’s label,” the FDA said in a letter to manufacturer General Mills, “we have determined (Cheerios) 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.”

Cheerios a drug, you say? Indubitably.  If you’ve been in a cereal aisle lately you’ve seen that bright yellow box that may have the heart-shaped bowl of Cheerios on it and the box informs you that Cheerios can help you lower your cholesterol and is heart healthy. Wow.  I mean I can see where people might get the wrong idea.  Standing among the brightly colored boxes of Cocca Puffs, Captain Crunch, Fruity Pebbles, and Frosted Flakes; seeing all that Shredded Wheat, Total, Raisin Bran, and Special K flanked by boxes of sugar-coated toaster pop-ups and all manner of instant oatmeal….I can see how someone might think that the Cheerios are actually a drug.  I mean, if you weren’t paying attention (because your eyes were closed and your hands are totally insensate) you might actually confuse it for a bottle of Excederin or NyQuil.

Apparently, claims such as the ones found on the Cheerios box totally ran amok during the Bush Administration, but the Obama Administration will be cracking down.  Don’t get me wrong, I think claims on labels and in advertising should be true and accurate. So maybe the FDA should start with, gee I dunno, all those weightloss rememedies out there.  But alas, Cheerios got the letter.

As if this was not enough of a thing to get somewhat riled about  I read further down in the article and I found this gem:

                                                       ” Koff argued that the General Mills study was suspect, as the company paid for the research and two staff members helped author it. That is not the type of rigorous, double-blind, peer-reviewed science necessary to back up drug claims.”

In case you didn’nt catch the part that made do a double take I added the emphasis for you. I find this scoffable.  You wanna talk about perr-reviewed science? Okay, bring it. First, there are many studies that support the many health benefits of whole grains, chief among them oats and wheat.  Now, I’m not saying every study or medical professional out there supports the whole-grain-health claims, because I obvioulsy have not read them all.  What I am saying is that there are studies with actual scientific conclusions, and that there are not many dissenters regarding these claims out there.  In fact, I can’t think of any dissent regard the healthful benefits of whole grains. Even those who tout low carb diets acknowledge whole grains have healthful benefits. It’s the refined grains and sugars that are not so good. What I’m saying is, essentially, it’s very hard (if you could do it at all) to find a doctor or dietician that would tell you that eating whole grains would be bad for you in this context. Basically, because the science does not come to that conclusion.

Why then have we thrown science off the global warming bus? (I know, what you’re thinking: Maya, how the hell do you draw a parallel between America’s #1 selling breakfast cereal and the debate on global warming? I’m glad you asked.) Okay global warming, I’m sorry, I mean “global climate change”… Although, about 35 years ago there was hysteria about the impending ice age.  I guess that’s why they changed the term, because climate change could go either way technically, but we all know what they mean.

In case you haven’t noticed – and you may not have because Al Gore has a very robo-hypnotic voice that contibutes to excessive drowsiness, unintentional drooling and staring blankly into the void – the science on global climate change is not conclusive. Oh, you may hear Sean Penn and his red-carpet ilk proclaim that it is, but it just ain’t so. 

 There is a world-wide community of tens of thousands of scientists (there’s a petition they’ve signed and everything) who do not support the idea that climate change is mainly propelled anthropogenically if at all.  In fact, these crazy scientist think that climate change may be caused by something larger than your SUV – you know, like the sun. Not only do they point to the sun (after all it is a big ball of fire hanging round the sky that’s kinda hard to miss, but it probably has nothing to do with the climate…nah, that’s be just nuts!), but also to other various cosmic rays as well as more local causes such as oceans and volcanoes.  They’ve written such books as The Chilling Stars, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, The Manic Sun, and The Satanic Gasses just to name a few.

These objectors also point out that the east Antarctic is getting colder, California had billion dollar crop loss due to unusual frost last year, and southern sea ice is growing.  I’d also like to point out (as many of these guys also do) that, according to the geological record the global climate has changed several times on its own from ice to temperate. And I’m pretty sure T-rex and his brontosaurus pals weren’t driving Hummers and Escalades. In addition, during periods of warmth, the world generally does better in terms of food supply and general health and prosperity and less people (especially the elderly and very young) die in larger numbers during cold times not, as headlines would have you believe, during heatwaves.

But, this is in keeping with the alarmist trend and its top three rules: pick a pariah, ignore facts, shout loudly. It is just ridiculous to treat Cheerios like this.  And what about all the other foods that make similar claims such as the Smart Balance brand of butter spreads, Tropicana orange juice, Vitamin Water, or Weight Watchers SmartOnes? Are they drugs, too.  Are we going to need a prescription for our breakfast? Does that mean it’ll be a covered benefit? And who’s gonna pay for that? So many questions, too many directions to go. I’m not saying all those products should all be pulled from the shelves or have to change their labels.  But I am wondering how it came to this, this uber-nanny state.

I went to my local Pharmaca store  (An integrative pharmacy with a lot of supplements) today to pick up some Omega-3’s and Glucosamine and every time I turned over a bottle it said on the label, “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any condition or disease,” or something along those lines.  Will Cheerios be able to do that? But let’s be honest, that’s why people buy those things, to prevent, cure and treat. And we should be allowed to buy those things. We should be able to take care of ourselves.  As it stands now, supplement makers have the responsibility to ensure the safety of their product, not the FDA.  So why do we need the FDA anyway? I don’t know.  My bet is that private industry would’ve produced a similar agency because people just don’t like it when things are unsafe. Such organizations already exist in many industries (And private industry usually does it better than the government): Flight Safety Foundation, The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, The Gluten Intolerance Group’s Gluten Free Certification Organization.  

Anyway, didn’t the FDA approve Vioxx? Yeah, in 1999 (Clinton Administration).  Hmmm. And Merck, who manufactured it, voluntarily pulled it in 2004 (Bush Administration). Well, it’s a good thing those guys are so concerned.

It’s not about safety, it’s a bout politics and control.  And they don’t even have the decency to admit it. So, what was that again about peer-reviewed science and policy-making? Let’s have some intellectual honesty here, folks, then we can have a discussion.  And let’s actually let the science shape the policy instead of the the other way around.

 

Links related to the above topics:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/health-gains-from-whole-grains/index.html (kudos for whole grains)

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/1353 (whole grain study)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece (Former New Scientist Ed. on challenging the “settled” science)

http://www.google.com/search?q=medieval+warm+period&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1&ei=90I8SurqHIj-tAOp3IH4Cg&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11  (medieval warm period time line)

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf   (Article by Richard Lindzen about climate change)

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/222_Exchange.pdf (by Richard LIndzen about global warming hysteria)

http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/HealthClaimsMeetingSignificantScientificAgreementSSA/ucm074284.htm  (FDA regulation on soluble fiber and heart disease, it’s very governmental, but I do recommend reading what you can of it as well as checking out the rest of their ridiculous website.)

Advertisements

One Response to “Cheerio to Cheerios?”

  1. Steve Says:

    Now I can eat my cocoa krispies guilt free. Thank you Obama! Down with Cheerios, up with cocoa krispies!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: