FDA: Cheerios is claiming to be a drug

This news is astounding: The FDA, which for many years has worked hard to serve as a lapdog for its industry masters (not the taxpayers), has recently woken up and taken a real stand. The FDA has charged that Cheerios is "misbranded" as a drug that prevents and treats high cholesterol and heart disease. Caveat: The FDA warning letter doesn't cover all of the health claims on boxes of Cheerios. Here's an excerpt from the FDA warning letter to General Mills:

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. Specifically, your Cheerios® product bears the following claims on its label:

• "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks" " • "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol. 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."

These claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia. Additionally, the claims indicate that Cheerios® is intended for use in the treatment, mitigation, and prevention of coronary heart disease through, lowering total and "bad" (LDL) cholesterol. Elevated levels of total and LDL cholesterol are a risk factor for coronary heart disease and can be a sign of coronary heart disease. Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug within the meaning of section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321 (g)P)(B)].

I applaud the FDA's actions. Many food products are covered with comparable health claims, yet (until now) the claims have not been scrutinized by anyone other than the manufacturers. I suspect that a huge percentage of these claims would not hold up to an independent scientific review. I also suspect that many consumers make their food purchase choices based on these sorts of claims, many of them unsubstantiated. To the extent that a manufacturer gets a competitive leg up by making an unsubstantiated claim, this is an unfair practice that hurts manufacturers who are not stretching the truth. Now, the FDA will take a look at these claims of General Mills, and hopefully thousands of other food manufacturers, and we'll then see how many of those now-ubiquitous health claims start disappearing from products on the shelves. Too bad there's not an organized produce and grain industries that spends big money plastering signs all over produce departments (and billboards) telling people how good it is to eat fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and also telling consumers that there is no need to buy expensive processed food in wasteful packaging to be healthy. There's so many health claims stamped onto food products that walking down the grocery aisle makes me think I'm at a NASCAR event. I'm not trying to blast the makers of Cheerios here. My kids eat it--sometimes I do too. Perhaps these claims on the Cheerios boxes are justified. But let us investigate. Let us really find out before we allow the grocery aisle health claim wars to continue.

Continue ReadingFDA: Cheerios is claiming to be a drug

Health-less

The boogeyman of Socialized Medicine is being dragged onto the field of rhetorical combat to block the move toward anything smacking of Single Payer Health Care in the United States. The argument is old and hoary by now, that adopting a system like that available in Canada or the United Kingdom would lead to a collapse of American health care. Somehow the fact that expenses might be shared and disbursed through the government will render the world’s best health care system somehow crippled inside a generation is not seriously questioned by most people. Because most people don’t know. You can find case after case of anecdotal evidence to support the notion that British health care is worse than ours. Someone knows someone who, as the argument goes. And there is something to that. The waiting periods alone, the pigeonholing of treatment—horror stories abound which we glimpsed here when HMOs were instituted and accountants seemed to be in charge of medicine. There is, in fact, too much information for the average American to digest much less make sense of. Technologically, the United States has an extraordinary medical system. Unmatched in the world, despite some annoyingly negative statistics. That we achieve what we do in a country peopled by citizens who do the least for their own health than in any other country comparably empowered is amazing. Americans eat too much. Medicine can only do so much against a rising tide of obesity related illnesses. The tradition of the doctor giving you a physical and then telling you to eat right and get some exiercise is not a quaint leftover from an age that didn’t know as much as we do—that is sound advice and more than half the battle in maintaining good health. The explosion of Type 2 diabetes in children has been alarming, and this can be tied directly to diet and exercise. We also work longer hours under higher stress than almost anywhere else in the developed world. The need for vacations and long weekends is acute. This may sound sarcastic, but the link between stress and several major illnesses is no joke. We are also a violent society. If one looks at emergency room statistics, it becomes quickly clear that we are a people who like to beat, stab, and shoot each other at higher levels than almost anywhere else. What makes all these factors so overwhelming is that we have the means to do all this. Because a certain percentage, a significant percentage, of the population can afford to go to the doctor and have the consequences of all these lifestyle disasters “taken care of.” I put all this out front because the one factor that is muted in the national debate over the rising cost of healthcare is the fact that we are, collectively, idiots. We do not do, statistically, the simplest things to avert the need for medical intervention. The last detail in this litany has nothing to do with idiocy but with sentiment and perspective. It has been said for decades and it is true—80% of individual health expense in this country is spent in the last two years of life. We are, as a people, loathe to die and we will direct our health services to do absolutely everything to give us another day. In Europe, such people are told to go home and die. That sounds cold, I know, and I’m sure there are people in France and Germany and Italy with the resources to reject this advice. But the nations as a whole are not expected to pay for it. Here we are. Through health insurance.

Continue ReadingHealth-less

What we buy versus what makes us happy

Geoffrey Miller has just published a new book, Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior. I haven't read it yet, but I am now ordering it, based on Miller's terrific prior work (see here, for example). In the meantime, I did enjoy this NYT blog review of Spent, which includes this provocative question:

List the ten most expensive things (products, services or experiences) that you have ever paid for (including houses, cars, university degrees, marriage ceremonies, divorce settlements and taxes). Then, list the ten items that you have ever bought that gave you the most happiness. Count how many items appear on both lists.

If you're looking for simplistic answers, you won't get them from Miller. I won't spoil the answers he obtained or his analysis of those answers, but you'll find them here. [addendum] I found this one item refreshingly honest. Refreshingly, because I know a lot of parents, I see their faces, I hear their complaints (and their exhultations). I know that it's PC to say that having children is a continuous wonderful joy and that all parents are glad they did had children. Miller's research suggests that the answer is not this simple:

[Here's an answer that appears [much more on the ‘expensive’ than on the ‘happy’ lists [includes] Children, including child care, school fees, child support, fertility treatments. Costly, often disappointing, usually ungrateful. Yet, the whole point of life, from a Darwinian perspective. Parental instincts trump consumer pleasure-seeking.

Continue ReadingWhat we buy versus what makes us happy

Our incredibly fickle media turns all of its spotlights on Michael Jackson

Check out the home page of MSNBC tonight (click on the thumbnail below). Do you see ANYTHING about the crisis in Iran? Instead we are presented with endless drivel about Michael Jackson, who was an extremely talented entertainer many years ago. But I suppose that there is nothing interesting going on in Iran. And nothing much else going on anywhere else either, apparently. For all you can tell by looking at the MSNBC homepage, the problems in Iran have been entirely resolved. Or maybe the problem is that MSNBC doesn't have anybody on the ground in Iran, and when a tree falls in the forest where there aren't any mainstream media reporters, the tree didn't really fall at all. Even though sustained coverage of Iran is potentially a lifeline for the brave Iranian men and women who are standing up to their government, which apparently stole their national election. And BTW, had we elected John McCain and had he gotten his way to bomb Iran, would our media have tried to present an accurate viewpoint of these young heroes? Or would we have merely seen a reply of the Iraq invasion, lots of videos of bombs being dropped and missiles being launched? msnbc-no-iran MSNBC is merely doing what the rest of the commercial news sites are doing. ALL of the commercial news sites have decided that Michael Jackson is far more important than . . . well . . . everything else combined. See the thumbnails below to see the home pages of CNN and ABC. What do these news priorities say about our commercial news businesses, and what do they say about us as commercial news consumers? I'd suggest that this fickle coverage suggests that the commercial media doesn't take its job seriously. Not at all. cnn-not-much-iran abc-barely-mentions-iran Absolute insanity.

Continue ReadingOur incredibly fickle media turns all of its spotlights on Michael Jackson

Sticker Shock

Back in the 1980's I learned that digital electronics always rapidly descend in price. Pretty much, if you bought a computer, disc player, or digital camera a month ago then the price would already be noticeably lower. But I recently was told (by Erich as he took the pictures here) that the camera he (and I) love to carry has increased in price since we bought them. I didn't believe him, so I looked it up at Pricegrabber.com and at Amazon. Amazon seems to show the real prices that the (lower) PriceGrabber links jump to. The exact camera that I bought for $160 from Amazon 7 months ago is now a whopping $358! Un-be-(expletive)-lievable. You may remember Erich and I raving about this little gem since he first bought his over a year ago. I shopped independently and at length to select the same camera. One odd feature of it is that it is available in a range of colors. I bought mine in Gold because it was the cheapest at the time, by $5. Now however, the price is about $180 in blue or brown, up to $358 in ... Gold! Apparently, this camera is now a hot item. Possibly one reason besides those we've mentioned on this site is that hackers have been at work. One can download uncertified "patches" to make this camera do even more amazing things. See Turn Your Point-and-Shoot into a Super-Camera at LifeHacker.com I feel that this is but another sign of our living in Interesting Times.

Continue ReadingSticker Shock