Need a prescription for Cheerios?

Oh good grief, if that isn't the stupidest thing. If cheerios goes, whats else, whole grain foods, vegetables, milk?

 

sounds familiar Tim, I think I might have read the same book.

 

I don't understand why they need to call Cheerios a drug to solve their problem.

Isn't the FDA also responsible for food labeling?

Why don't they either require the manufacturer to offer sufficient proof that the labeling claims are true or require them to leave the claims off the label?

It does seem that the "Cheerios is a drug" route that the FDA is taking is some sort of back door power grab.

 

If the FDA were doing its job......
it would be insuring that our food and drugs are safe.... without contaminants and poisons..... and that drugs were effective in treating diseases.

However.....this particular influence is aimed at protecting the drug companies and serving notice on any one with any food or product which might contribute to correcting the internal biological conditions which creates the medically diagnosed condition in the first place.

Instead of nutritional deficiencies...... which, btw, doctors are generally discouraged from doing test to find out....... the drug companies WANT disease diagnosis..... and promote a DRUG DEFICIENCY MENTALITY. Sponsored today by your cooperating and corporation supportive bureau, FDA, the proud recipient of YOUR tax dollars.

 

Since whole grains have been proven to have healthy benefits, and lowering cholesterol, their claims are not false, otherwise your doctor would never tell you to eat more whole grains and fiber, then their label is not false.
Unless the governement is going to start regulating your food, whole grains and fiber, then theres nothing with cheerios for them to do. While we're at it, lets add fats, sugars and fresh vegetables to the governemts hit list of foods we have to get directly from them.

 

Just another display of the idiocy of the so-called intellectuals of our country. A 12 year old boy died recently while bureaucracy held up a drug that could have saved his life, yet our government is concerned with a box of Cheerios. It is absolutely unbelievable how low our country has sunk in terms of intelligence.

 

"...we have determined (Cheerios) is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug..."

Maybe if General Mills would change its advertising so as not to present Cheerios as a treatment for high blood pressure, there would be no problem.

 

Yeah Robert, three cheers for Big Brother.

 

This is ridiculous!

 

I think the issue is false or unproven advertising claims. This is just a way to get General Mills' attention.

Still, can you imagine . . .


CHEERIOS 1 mg
Active Ingredient: Oats
Inactive Ingredients: None
Dosage: Administer one bowl full once a day, preferably in the morning. May be taken alone, but for best results, add one cup low-fat or non-fat milk. May be taken with one medium banana (sliced), strawberries (sliced), or other fruit of patient's choice. Dosage should be taken one spoonful at a time until bowl is empty.

Warnings: Overfilling spoon may result in milk and/or drug dropping on clothing, requiring a change of outfit and additional washing of soiled garments. In scientific studies, some patients have developed an addiction and a craving for harder substances, such as Trix (only for Kids) and Shredded Wheat. Use with caution.

 

Yet the medical world has said over and over whole grain, high fiber is just that, so they are repeating what we've all been told.
Since when has whole grain oats become a drug?

as I said, medical world has been telling us jus this for many years now. even I was told by my doctor to eat fiber (whole grain) for high blood pressure and heart health, among other benefits).
Thats like saying, you can't advertise vegetables as having health benefits.

 

Lat I checked Cheerios was almost $4,000 per ton. Somebody is making a lot of money on sugar and grain. Maybe a prescription should be needed so people do not pay so much for such processed "food"

 

CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE

("We'll show those Cheerios people that we're serious about America's health!"):BangHead:

Apple growers look out, you're next if you can't prove that:
"An apple a day keeps the Dr away!"

Sure do hope you "0" folks are happy now!!

Now I understand the old adage - "The inmates are running the asylum.":thumbsup:

 

Makers of food are not supposed to make medical claims, such as saying their product will lower cholesterol or whatever.

If this were allowed, we could have all kinds of false claims all over the place. In fact, there have been.

The consumer should just educate himself and know that whole grains are good and why. I personally do not want cereal companies, or anyone else, giving me medical information or advice regarding their product when they are not doctors and may be lying to sell the product.

 

What does this have to do with the President?

 

The problem is a diet without balance promotes deficiencies which lead to disease if not corrected. Some early deficiencies and the pathology which follows can be corrected if corrected in time.

But medicine isn't aimed at dietary needs. Medicine isn't even aimed at producing a cure: It is aimed primarially at treating the symptoms, relieving discomfort, altering the body's response so that test appear to be more positive, and prolonging the quality of life (or at least projecting the image that this is being accomplished 'because of modern medicine').

But, I think, Hippocrates, considered to be the father of medicine, is credited with teaching his students 'you are what you eat'.

There can be no such thing as 'a nutritional deficiency' or an imbalance in diet if there doesn't exist the possibility of balanced nutrition in contrast. These issues were being studied rather vigourously in the first half of the twentieth century and most of what is known now is a product of those early studies. However, studies in nutrition and the metabolics of the body have been a low priority since the end of WW II. If one were to follow the pharmaceutical industry and the economics it produces, and its influence upon research, and lobbies, and laws affecting food and drugs.... one might get a different perspective regarding why little is being disseminated today concerning nutritional requirements and nutritional balance and good health.

With Cheerios, I think the issue concerns the question 'Does it contribute to controlling or lowering the cholesterol and placque build up in the blood vessels?' .....How about oatmeal.... does it make a difference when included in the diet in contrast to if it is withheld? If it does then isn't it right to include this information to the public..... unless there is no problem with cholesterol.... in which case..... why give a drug to control something which the body makes naturally and which doesn't matter anyway: And, if controlling cholesterol is important and one needs drugs to help keep it under control, is it not also wise to be informed about the foods which affect and support the lab values of cholesterol, and inform the public so they can include these dietary 'helps' as part of their dietary habits?

Everything we eat contributes something to our balance of health.... and in spite of the standardizations of 'allowances' for gender and age groups.... there are also individual differences, which may be altered by infections, injury, genetics, and disease,....... and even by medications which are deemed to be necessary....may interfere with the balance and create greater needs in some areas and less needs in other areas.

Even, dietary supplements, which many take with the thinking that they are helping to maintain health.... may not be all that its 'racked up' to be: We allow ourselves to be confused when we hear or read conflicting statements about supplement studies. Seldom is it revealed as to how detailed or specific a study is done.

For example: The recent study on Vitamin E which caused many people to stop taking that supplement or brought the wisdom of taking it into question that it could also produce side effects: When revealing these studies to the public through news reports... the information isn't volunteered and may not even be part of the published study to inform us of the QUALITY of the Vitamin E which was studied: First of all, was it nature's own carefully isolated Vitamin E which was isolated and used in the study or was it a cheaper and synthetic form of Vitamin E? While some believe a chemically made copy is as good as the original, there are others who contend that synthetic versions of nutrients are like synthetic hormones.... they may work in some instances for a while, but their bioavailablity and activity in the body as a substitute for the real, maybe recognized by the body's systems as being inferior, or artificial, and eventually lead to other problems as the body tries to make adjustments to deal with those balances foreign to nature. Second, if in natural form, vitamin E has 8 different chemical structures, all or most of which are present in the foods in which it is naturally found... then did the study carefully include the balanced formulation as God made it, or did the test include the most prominent or cheapest form of that Vitamin and exclude the others from combination, thus limiting the study to the effectiveness of just one form?

HOW ABOUT THE TRANSFAT ISSUE....controlled by the FDA? That issue being...... it is reported in some literature that there is no 'safe' allowance for transfats. The FDA, accepted this and decided that foods containing transfats must be so labeled and so labeling started: But the Food Industry complained and the FDA ................ The FDA BACKED DOWN from informing the public because the Food Industry's protest, and now the only time we're informed if a food contains transfats IS IF the transfats are or exceed 0.5 mg/per serving....... whatever the Food Industry declares constitutes a 'serving'. If 4 ounces (120g) is considered a serving, and the can contains 3 1/2 servings..... it makes no difference if the can will be one person's serving or split between two...... But in most instances, one can believe that the servings represented on a package seldom represents what goes on the plate of an active adult or teenager. Thus the FDA is misleading us and IS NOT INFORMING US.