Tell the FDA that Cherries--And Now Walnuts-- Are Not Illegal Drugs!

[Hotspring 44]

Source: Alliance for Natural Health USA; https://www.anh-usa.org/

Tell the FDA that Cherries--And Now Walnuts-- Are Not Illegal Drugs!

The FDA recently sent a letter to Diamond Foods, Inc., a processor and distributor of packaged nuts, threatening this respected firm with legal action and possible seizure or injunction of their walnuts. Why? As Bill Faloon, Life Extension Foundation co-founder, explains in a powerful new investigative article, Diamond Foods stated on its website that walnuts promote and maintain a healthy heart among other health benefits.
The FDA wrote that the walnuts sold by Diamond Foods cannot be legally marketed because walnuts “are not generally recognized as safe and effective” for the medical conditions referenced on Diamond Foods’ website.
According to the FDA, these walnuts are now classified as “drugs,” and the “unauthorized health claims” cause them to become subject to government “seizure or injunction.”
Last time we checked, the FDA’s mission was to educate the public and protect the public health—not to harass and censor American companies that provide high quality, nutritious, and healthful natural products! As a matter of fact, there are dozens of studies that show sharply reduced incidences of heart disease for those who consume walnuts. As Bill Faloon points out, the National Library of Medicine database contains no fewer than thirty-five peer-reviewed published papers supporting a claim that ingesting walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce heart attack risk among other health benefits.
Nor is this the first time that the FDA has attacked the marketers of healthy foods just because they dared to cite peer reviewed scientific research! The Agency previously enjoined the cherry growers, and has also attacked green tea producers and other health food producers for the very same reason: “unauthorized health claims,” even though they had hard science behind their statements!
Selective Enforcement

Why does the FDA target cherry growers, walnut distributors, and green tea producers with threatening letters, when they allow Frito-Lay, a subsidiary of the Pepsi-Cola company, to advertise their potato chips as “heart healthy”? Do you see their chips being called “illegal drugs”? Does the FDA actually think that deep fried potatoes laden with salt are healthier than cherries and walnuts?
What is really going on here? Could it have something to do with the fact that these calorie-laden snacks are sold by a giant food and soft drink company with $43 billion per year in sales—and lots of clout on Capitol Hill—while producers of natural healthy products are often small and relatively defenseless firms?
Please do not let the FDA silence good science and common sense! Please contact the FDA today and tell them to stop censoring science and harassing producers of natural food products.
Click here to read more about the FDA's attack on walnuts.

[edie]

Source: Alliance for Natural Health USA; Welcome to the Alliance for Natural Health - USA

Tell the FDA that Cherries--And Now Walnuts-- Are Not Illegal Drugs!

The FDA recently sent a letter to Diamond Foods, Inc., a processor and distributor of packaged nuts, threatening this respected firm with legal action and possible seizure or injunction of their walnuts. Why? As Bill Faloon, Life Extension Foundation co-founder, explains in a powerful new investigative article, Diamond Foods stated on its website that walnuts promote and maintain a healthy heart among other health benefits.
The FDA wrote that the walnuts sold by Diamond Foods cannot be legally marketed because walnuts “are not generally recognized as safe and effective” for the medical conditions referenced on Diamond Foods’ website.
According to the FDA, these walnuts are now classified as “drugs,” and the “unauthorized health claims” cause them to become subject to government “seizure or injunction.”
Last time we checked, the FDA’s mission was to educate the public and protect the public health—not to harass and censor American companies that provide high quality, nutritious, and healthful natural products! As a matter of fact, there are dozens of studies that show sharply reduced incidences of heart disease for those who consume walnuts. As Bill Faloon points out, the National Library of Medicine database contains no fewer than thirty-five peer-reviewed published papers supporting a claim that ingesting walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce heart attack risk among other health benefits.
Nor is this the first time that the FDA has attacked the marketers of healthy foods just because they dared to cite peer reviewed scientific research! The Agency previously enjoined the cherry growers, and has also attacked green tea producers and other health food producers for the very same reason: “unauthorized health claims,” even though they had hard science behind their statements!
Selective Enforcement

Why does the FDA target cherry growers, walnut distributors, and green tea producers with threatening letters, when they allow Frito-Lay, a subsidiary of the Pepsi-Cola company, to advertise their potato chips as “heart healthy”? Do you see their chips being called “illegal drugs”? Does the FDA actually think that deep fried potatoes laden with salt are healthier than cherries and walnuts?
What is really going on here? Could it have something to do with the fact that these calorie-laden snacks are sold by a giant food and soft drink company with $43 billion per year in sales—and lots of clout on Capitol Hill—while producers of natural healthy products are often small and relatively defenseless firms?
Please do not let the FDA silence good science and common sense! Please contact the FDA today and tell them to stop censoring science and harassing producers of natural food products.
Click here to read more about the FDA's attack on walnuts.

I do not think this is about the walnuts or cherries- its about making a statement like "maintaining a healthy heart" on the food packaging- making a prognosis like that belongs "legally" to doctors, nutritionists- or to pharmacists (the later have more knowledge about drugs). Junk-foods, I call them killer-foods don't "say" so on the package- therefore its not against the law. People have the choice to make the decision to be "good" to them self or pollute the "goods" they where born with. Food-stores are a business as any other- its about money. I remember, a long time ago, it was a "healthy thing to eat lots of carrots"- some people thought it was the complete perfect food- well, one of them died because that was all that person ate. Walnuts, eaten in large amounts can also be toxic, and that is what FDA is trying to prevent. I hope it will all work out in the end- food companies selling food and professional nutritionists advise us about them. I go by the motto of my grandmother: a little bit of everything, a little bit at a time...

[Hotspring 44]

I do not think this is about the walnuts or cherries- its about making a statement like "maintaining a healthy heart" on the food packaging- making a prognosis like that belongs "legally" to doctors, nutritionists- or to pharmacists (the later have more knowledge about drugs).

First of all, there's nothing wrong with making a factual statement on the packaging of the phone product that says "maintaining a healthy heart" because the meaning of "maintaining a healthy" whatever is the statement of maintenance of an already healthy, whatever, it is not a claim in a way to be a cure, remedy, or treatment.

Second of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "prognosis". it seems to me that your definition of prognosis is not the same as mine. My belief is that statements specifically referencing to data are not prognosis.

In regards to the packaging of the walnuts; maybe there should have been some references printed on the package so as to guide the consumer to more information than what is on the package.
Maybe there should even be some sort of a disclaimer on the package to protect the food supplier from some sort of liability. But to say that the food (walnuts) is a drug is absurd.

In this case it is an (FDA) attack on the food packaging of Diamond Foods Inc. walnuts, because of some statement/s made on the packaging about the "health benefits" (not to be confused with the meaning "medicine", which is a different meaning than "health benefits").

The FDA (not using common sense) apparently (in this case) decided that the claims/statements on the packaging somehow (semantically perhaps?) has the affect of changing the walnuts into an untested drug that a physician may not even be able to prescribe because it is not on their list of drugs!

It's obviously a move to harass or possibly to make some sort of a ridiculous legal precedent of some sort.
I thought FDA is supposed to be some sort of a law enforcement agency, not a law making agency.
Even if there is a specific law, how come they only do it selectively and harass certain company's and not all others that are obviously doing the same thing? (BTW I copied and pasted an excerpt with more specifics in the box at the bottom of the page on this post).

Junk-foods, I call them killer-foods don't "say" so on the package- therefore its not against the law.

Neither do tobacco products; state that they can cause cancer either! Heck even gasoline at the pump has a written statement, that the petroleum products contained within are "known to cause cancer in laboratory animals" and "may cause birth defects".

People have the choice to make the decision to be "good" to them self or pollute the "goods" they where born with.

Only when they're adequately informed!
Maybe the labeling on the package (if it didn't or did in this case, I'm not even sure) should have had references so the people could look it up themselves if they so choose. But as far as I can tell that was not the issue with the FDA.

Food-stores are a business as any other- its about money.

"Food stores" sell a multitude of different products. Some of those products suppliers do care about their customers health more than other food suppliers. Also, some food suppliers want to inform the public because the schools don't always do so well at that sort of thing.
Schools used to sell potato chips and soda pop to the obese kids and some of them probably still do.

I remember, a long time ago, it was a "healthy thing to eat lots of carrots"- some people thought it was the complete perfect food- well, one of them died because that was all that person ate.

That's a perfect example of an ill-informed individual not using "common sense".
Should we blame that persons death on the carrot supplier if the packaging said those carrots are scientifically proven to be rich in vitamin A, and vitamin A is good for your eyesight or something like that?

Walnuts, eaten in large amounts can also be toxic, and that is what FDA is trying to prevent.

Drinking too much water can also be toxic; so does that mean water bottling companies should not be allowed to say on their packaging that water is a necessary thing for life because we literally can't live without it? Would that make water a drug? are you saying that only a doctor or nutritionist should be able to "prescribe" water?
I think you have enough "common sense" to know the (common sense) answer to those questions.

I hope it will all work out in the end- food companies selling food and professional nutritionists advise us about them.

Did I miss something? Where is the evidence that Diamond Foods Inc "advised" people to eat walnuts to "cure" or "treat" any ailments?
Besides that, I do not believe for one minute that nutritionists have a copyright on comments and statements of peer-reviewed scientific data about specific foods; nor should they, or anyone else for that matter.

I go by the motto of my grandmother: a little bit of everything, a little bit at a time...

Does that "motto" ("a little bit of everything, a little bit at a time") also include all the prescription drugs too?... ...I'm only kidding about that last statement! LOL!

edie, I hope you're drinking enough good water, and not rationing it.

Sometimes copious amounts of good things, particularly certain foods at certain times and fresh water are healthy things to do without needing a nutritionist, physician or other some sort of expensive and sometimes unaffordable, professional so-called "health practitioner" to tell us when we need to do so.
Our own body and common sense guided by good information is sometimes far better than what those professionals would recommend in the first place.

Sometimes it's a good healthy thing to on occasion, gorge on cherries or walnuts.

BTW, why does the FDA allow potato chips to be advertised as “heart healthy” and not walnuts?

Below is an excerpt from William Faloon. The whole text can be found on this following link:https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site....pdf?docID=361

The FDA obviously does not want the public to discover that they can reduce their risk of age-related disease by consuming healthy foods. They prefer consumers only learn about mass marketed garbage foods that shorten lifespan by increasing degenerative disease risk. FDA allows potato chips to be advertised as “heart healthy” Frito-Lay® is a subsidiary of the Pepsi Cola company. Frito-Lay® sells $12 billion a year of products that include: Lays® Potato Chips Doritos® Tostitos® Cheetos® Fritos® You might not associate these mostly-fried snack foods as being good for you, but the FDA has no problem allowing the Frito-Lay® website to state the following: “Frito-Lay snacks start with real farm-grown ingredients. You might be surprised at how much good stuff goes into your favorite snack. Good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals. Or corn, one Phosphorous – all necessary for healthy bones, teeth, nerves and muscles. And it's not just the obvious ingredients. Our all-natural sunflower, corn and soybean oils contain good polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which help lower total and LDL “bad” cholesterol and maintain HDL “good” cholesterol levels, which can support a healthy heart. Even salt, when eaten in moderation as part of a balanced diet, is essential for the body.”44 Wow! Based on what Frito-Lay is allowed to state, it sounds like we should be living on these snacks. Who would want to ingest walnuts, pomegranate, or green tea (which FDA now says are illegal drugs) when these fat-calorie laden, mostly-fried carbohydrates are so widely available? According to the Frito Lay® website, Lays® potato chips are now “heart healthy” because the level of saturated fat was reduced and replaced with sunflower oil.45 Scientific studies do show that when a polyunsaturated fat (like sunflower oil) is substituted for saturated fat, favorable changes in blood cholesterol occur.46 Fatally omitted from the Frito-Lay® website is the fact that sunflower oil supplies lots of omega-6 fats, but no omega-3s.47 The American diet already contains too many omega-6 fats and woefully inadequate omega-3. Excess omega-6 fats in the diet in the absence of adequate omega-3s produces devastating effects including the production of pro-inflammatory compounds that contribute to virtually every age-related disease including atherosclerosis. 48,49,50,51,52,53 For the FDA to allow Frito-Lay® to pretend there are heart benefits to ingesting their high-calorie snack products, while censoring the ability of walnut companies to make scientifically-substantiated claims, is tantamount of treason against the health of the American public. Don’t forget the acrylamides When carbohydrate foods are cooked at high temperature (as occurs when potatoes are fried in sunflower oil to make potato chips), a toxic compound called arcylamide is formed.54 According to the National Cancer Institute, “acrylamide is considered to be a mutagen and a probable human carcinogen, based mainly on studies in laboratory animals.55 Scientists do not yet know with any certainty whether the levels of acrylamide typically found in some foods pose a health risk for humans.” In response to these kinds of concerns, the FDA funded a massive study to ascertain acrylamide content of various foods. FDA found that potato chips and other fried carbohydrate foods were especially high in acrylamides. The FDA, however, has not stopped companies selling high acrylamide-containing fried carbohydrates from promoting these foods as healthy.

[LenInSebastopol]

All your "maybes" as well as the function of the FDA and clarification of much of the language will be taken care of as this gov't nudges the issues towards the courts, or has the food "products & industry" lobby the law makers, to "clarify" the identified issues. In the end WE will lose due to more "regulations" (laws) that will CONTROL the food we may purchase, how and who may grow it to sell, etc. The term "organic" will have a whole new meaning as dictated by gov't. It is assumed or guessed we, the people, are not smart enough to know walnuts and cherries are not healthy as mac & fries with a coke? And Jeff wants all drugs legal?
Glad I'm old, and sorry, kids.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with making a factual statement on the packaging of the phone product that says "maintaining a healthy heart" because the meaning of "maintaining a healthy" whatever is the statement of maintenance of an already healthy, whatever, it is not a claim in a way to be a cure, remedy, or treatment.
Second of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "prognosis". it seems to me that your definition of prognosis is not the same as mine. My belief is that statements specifically referencing to data are not prognosis.

In regards to the packaging of the walnuts; maybe there should have been some references printed on the package so as to guide the consumer to more information than what is on the package.
Maybe there should even be some sort of a disclaimer on the package to protect the food supplier from some sort of liability. But to say that the food (walnuts) is a drug is absurd.

In this case it is an (FDA) attack on the food packaging of Diamond Foods Inc. walnuts, because of some statement/s made on the packaging about the "health benefits" (not to be confused with the meaning "medicine", which is a different meaning than "health benefits").

The FDA (not using common sense) apparently (in this case) decided that the claims/statements on the packaging somehow (semantically perhaps?) has the affect of changing the walnuts into an untested drug that a physician may not even be able to prescribe because it is not on their list of drugs!

It's obviously a move to harass or possibly to make some sort of a ridiculous legal precedent of some sort.
I thought FDA is supposed to be some sort of a law enforcement agency, not a law making agency.
Even if there is a specific law, how come they only do it selectively and harass certain company's and not all others that are obviously doing the same thing? (BTW I copied and pasted an excerpt with more specifics in the box at the bottom of the page on this post).




Neither do tobacco products; state that they can cause cancer either! Heck even gasoline at the pump has a written statement, that the petroleum products contained within are "known to cause cancer in laboratory animals" and "may cause birth defects".



Only when they're adequately informed!
Maybe the labeling on the package (if it didn't or did in this case, I'm not even sure) should have had references so the people could look it up themselves if they so choose. But as far as I can tell that was not the issue with the FDA.



"Food stores" sell a multitude of different products. Some of those products suppliers do care about their customers health more than other food suppliers. Also, some food suppliers want to inform the public because the schools don't always do so well at that sort of thing.
Schools used to sell potato chips and soda pop to the obese kids and some of them probably still do.



That's a perfect example of an ill-informed individual not using "common sense".
Should we blame that persons death on the carrot supplier if the packaging said those carrots are scientifically proven to be rich in vitamin A, and vitamin A is good for your eyesight or something like that?



Drinking too much water can also be toxic; so does that mean water bottling companies should not be allowed to say on their packaging that water is a necessary thing for life because we literally can't live without it? Would that make water a drug? are you saying that only a doctor or nutritionist should be able to "prescribe" water?
I think you have enough "common sense" to know the (common sense) answer to those questions.



Did I miss something? Where is the evidence that Diamond Foods Inc "advised" people to eat walnuts to "cure" or "treat" any ailments?
Besides that, I do not believe for one minute that nutritionists have a copyright on comments and statements of peer-reviewed scientific data about specific foods; nor should they, or anyone else for that matter.



Does that "motto" ("a little bit of everything, a little bit at a time") also include all the prescription drugs too?... ...I'm only kidding about that last statement! LOL!

edie, I hope you're drinking enough good water, and not rationing it.

Sometimes copious amounts of good things, particularly certain foods at certain times and fresh water are healthy things to do without needing a nutritionist, physician or other some sort of expensive and sometimes unaffordable, professional so-called "health practitioner" to tell us when we need to do so.
Our own body and common sense guided by good information is sometimes far better than what those professionals would recommend in the first place.

Sometimes it's a good healthy thing to on occasion, gorge on cherries or walnuts.

BTW, why does the FDA allow potato chips to be advertised as “heart healthy” and not walnuts?

Below is an excerpt from William Faloon. The whole text can be found on this following link:https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site....pdf?docID=361

The FDA obviously does not want the public to discover that they can reduce their risk of age-related disease by consuming healthy foods. They prefer consumers only learn about mass marketed garbage foods that shorten lifespan by increasing degenerative disease risk. FDA allows potato chips to be advertised as “heart healthy” Frito-Lay® is a subsidiary of the Pepsi Cola company. Frito-Lay® sells $12 billion a year of products that include: Lays® Potato Chips Doritos® Tostitos® Cheetos® Fritos® You might not associate these mostly-fried snack foods as being good for you, but the FDA has no problem allowing the Frito-Lay® website to state the following: “Frito-Lay snacks start with real farm-grown ingredients. You might be surprised at how much good stuff goes into your favorite snack. Good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals. Or corn, one Phosphorous – all necessary for healthy bones, teeth, nerves and muscles. And it's not just the obvious ingredients. Our all-natural sunflower, corn and soybean oils contain good polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which help lower total and LDL “bad” cholesterol and maintain HDL “good” cholesterol levels, which can support a healthy heart. Even salt, when eaten in moderation as part of a balanced diet, is essential for the body.”44 Wow! Based on what Frito-Lay is allowed to state, it sounds like we should be living on these snacks. Who would want to ingest walnuts, pomegranate, or green tea (which FDA now says are illegal drugs) when these fat-calorie laden, mostly-fried carbohydrates are so widely available? According to the Frito Lay® website, Lays® potato chips are now “heart healthy” because the level of saturated fat was reduced and replaced with sunflower oil.45 Scientific studies do show that when a polyunsaturated fat (like sunflower oil) is substituted for saturated fat, favorable changes in blood cholesterol occur.46 Fatally omitted from the Frito-Lay® website is the fact that sunflower oil supplies lots of omega-6 fats, but no omega-3s.47 The American diet already contains too many omega-6 fats and woefully inadequate omega-3. Excess omega-6 fats in the diet in the absence of adequate omega-3s produces devastating effects including the production of pro-inflammatory compounds that contribute to virtually every age-related disease including atherosclerosis. 48,49,50,51,52,53 For the FDA to allow Frito-Lay® to pretend there are heart benefits to ingesting their high-calorie snack products, while censoring the ability of walnut companies to make scientifically-substantiated claims, is tantamount of treason against the health of the American public. Don’t forget the acrylamides When carbohydrate foods are cooked at high temperature (as occurs when potatoes are fried in sunflower oil to make potato chips), a toxic compound called arcylamide is formed.54 According to the National Cancer Institute, “acrylamide is considered to be a mutagen and a probable human carcinogen, based mainly on studies in laboratory animals.55 Scientists do not yet know with any certainty whether the levels of acrylamide typically found in some foods pose a health risk for humans.” In response to these kinds of concerns, the FDA funded a massive study to ascertain acrylamide content of various foods. FDA found that potato chips and other fried carbohydrate foods were especially high in acrylamides. The FDA, however, has not stopped companies selling high acrylamide-containing fried carbohydrates from promoting these foods as healthy.

[someguy]

All your "maybes" as well as the function of the FDA and clarification of much of the language will be taken care of as this gov't nudges the issues towards the courts, or has the food "products & industry" lobby the law makers, to "clarify" the identified issues. In the end WE will lose due to more "regulations" (laws) that will CONTROL the food we may purchase, how and who may grow it to sell, etc. The term "organic" will have a whole new meaning as dictated by gov't. It is assumed or guessed we, the people, are not smart enough to know walnuts and cherries are not healthy as mac & fries with a coke? And Jeff wants all drugs legal?
Glad I'm old, and sorry, kids.

So, you think laws and regulations are bad when it comes to food, because they allow the government to control "the food we may purchase, how and who may grow it to sell, etc.". You are concerned about the meaning of the word "organic" being eroded by the same regulatory agencies who are supposed to be there to protect it, and about the nanny state which seeks to dictate for us what is healthy and what is not, presumably because we are too stupid to think for ourselves.

I share your deep concern for these things. But please, do tell me why you don't share the same concern when it comes to drug laws. Are we somehow intelligent enough to make wise food choices, but not wise drug choices? Just as the government attempts to convince us that sugary cereals are somehow "heart healthy" but walnuts are dangerous, the government also seeks to coerce us into using only government approved drugs. Why? Well, because synthetic drugs are patentable. It all comes down to the money. Pharmaceutical companies don't stand to make any money off of most of the drugs that are currently illegal. And they hate the competition.

"Of the 783,936 annual deaths due to conventional medical mistakes, about 106,000 are from prescription drugs, according to Death by Medicine. That also is a conservative number. Some experts estimate it should be more like 200,000 because of underreported cases of adverse drug reactions." Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists

So clearly the drugs that the government is telling us are safe are NOT safe at all. Meanwhile, no one has ever died from using marijuana. But the government doesn't tell you that, do they? No, because the pharmaceutical companies that the FDA is in bed with want to sell their patentable, synthetic form of marijuana, Marinol. Natural substances are not patentable, so not much money can be made off of them. Same goes for the sugary cereals. Processed, denatured foods with added chemicals and preservatives have a much higher profit margin than natural, whole foods with life-promoting properties. It's clear that these regulatory agencies are actually working against the interests of the people, promoting unhealthy things as healthy and using fear-mongering to keep us from exercising our freedom of choice. The situation is the same whether we are talking about food or drugs.

The way I see it, you either believe in freedom or you don't. If you think we should have a right to make our own choices about what we put into our bodies, then that right should apply to everything. The day we allowed the government to dictate what drugs we can and cannot use, we opened the door for government regulation of our bodies. Until the day we close that door, we can expect government to attempt to dictate everything concerning our bodies, from abortion to food, and drinking water to drugs.

[edie]

I talked about FOOD products, not gasoline or tobacco or anything else, same as with the motto of my grandmother. (at that time there wasn't much junk food available- but I know what it is, therefore, I can still live by that motto- also- a little bit junk food once in a wile will not get me into the hospital, or I hope so)

There is something else I thought about: someone can write and talk about that walnuts and cherries are good for your heart etc... that act of recommendation can be called "medicate". So, if you write on a food packaging that that product is good for so and so, that actually by " law" would mean you medicate. By "law" medicate falls under medication. Of course that sounds picking at something, but if one does it, others have the right to do so too, then anybody can write and make statements what so ever. Perhaps thats what the FDA was concerned about- by "law" it is not allowed to medicate food on its packaging. Its nothing personal or about the food. In the long run it might make it simpler to keep the food and the research about it and what it does separate... just an other thought...

[someguy]

There is something else I thought about: someone can write and talk about that walnuts and cherries are good for your heart etc... that act of recommendation can be called "medicate". So, if you write on a food packaging that that product is good for so and so, that actually by " law" would mean you medicate. By "law" medicate falls under medication. Of course that sounds picking at something, but if one does it, others have the right to do so too, then anybody can write and make statements what so ever. Perhaps thats what the FDA was concerned about- by "law" it is not allowed to medicate food on its packaging. Its nothing personal or about the food. In the long run it might make it simpler to keep the food and the research about it and what it does separate... just an other thought...

What?? This is completely incorrect. If the company had said that their walnuts were a good treatment for diabetes, or another disease, that would be a problem. Legally no one but a doctor can make a diagnosis or recommend treatment for a disease. But promoting optimal health is another thing entirely. A recommendation cannot be construed as medical advice unless the person making the recommendation presents it as such. Companies who make health claims for their products are required to post a disclaimer that those statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. That way, people who love the nanny state can avoid those products, while freedom of choice and information is preserved for the rest of us.

This thing with walnuts and cherries is another thing entirely. The FDA is trying to say that walnuts and cherries are unregulated drugs if any health claims are made for them. That is obviously absurd. And it's obvious that the FDA's goal here is simply to scare these companies away from exercising their free speech. After all, if consumers started informing themselves about health and eating a diet to prevent degenerative disease, the need for pharmaceutical drugs would be drastically reduced. And that is what the FDA currently exists to protect: the interests of the pharmaceutical companies.

[LenInSebastopol]

So, you think laws and regulations are bad when it comes to food, because they allow the government to control "the food we may purchase, how and who may grow it to sell, etc.". You are concerned about the meaning of the word "organic" being eroded by the same regulatory agencies who are supposed to be there to protect it, and about the nanny state which seeks to dictate for us what is healthy and what is not, presumably because we are too stupid to think for ourselves.

You got it.

I share your deep concern for these things. But please, do tell me why you don't share the same concern when it comes to drug laws. Are we somehow intelligent enough to make wise food choices, but not wise drug choices?

We need food to eat and live, but we don't need drugs. And we don't need to have most of the crap advertised that are purchased. Do you wish to advertise drugs? Wouldn't that be a kick! Your equivocation between drugs and food is astounding! Yes, you use the principles of logic the same correct way, but the issues compared are not equivalent. It's as if one says, "I am hungry" and then eats their arm or a stone.

Just as the government attempts to convince us that sugary cereals are somehow "heart healthy" but walnuts are dangerous, the government also seeks to coerce us into using only government approved drugs. Why? Well, because synthetic drugs are patentable. It all comes down to the money. Pharmaceutical companies don't stand to make any money off of most of the drugs that are currently illegal. And they hate the competition.

If it were a case of money only, heroin is cheap to make and folks will sell their children, their bodies, and their mothers to get it, so.....money is not an issue. Pharmaceuticals could make a reasonable fortune off of it. And yes, it is not on the gov't recommended list....no wonder why, or do you?

"Of the 783,936 annual deaths due to conventional medical mistakes, about 106,000 are from prescription drugs, according to Death by Medicine. That also is a conservative number. Some experts estimate it should be more like 200,000 because of underreported cases of adverse drug reactions." Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists

Twain was right, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics!
One doctor rights one book and we are to abandon the pharmacy industry en masse? And 14% are ascribed to prescribed drugs, eh? Wonder if there were "complications" in the statistical compiling and/or analysis. Give me a break, and if were double that number, the alternative is....pain? Suffering? No relief of symptoms, let alone cure for the other 75% of the population?

So clearly the drugs that the government is telling us are safe are NOT safe at all. Meanwhile, no one has ever died from using marijuana. But the government doesn't tell you that, do they? No, because the pharmaceutical companies that the FDA is in bed with want to sell their patentable, synthetic form of marijuana, Marinol. Natural substances are not patentable, so not much money can be made off of them. Same goes for the sugary cereals. Processed, denatured foods with added chemicals and preservatives have a much higher profit margin than natural, whole foods with life-promoting properties. It's clear that these regulatory agencies are actually working against the interests of the people, promoting unhealthy things as healthy and using fear-mongering to keep us from exercising our freedom of choice. The situation is the same whether we are talking about food or drugs.

So are you saying the gov't may have an opinion but have nothing to do in the regulation? But they are "protecting us" from ourselves and the market, while they "educate" us until we come to believe in what they want. So more gov't is better? You want them to define "organic" as it will be so within about 5 years!

The way I see it, you either believe in freedom or you don't. If you think we should have a right to make our own choices about what we put into our bodies, then that right should apply to everything. The day we allowed the government to dictate what drugs we can and cannot use, we opened the door for government regulation of our bodies. Until the day we close that door, we can expect government to attempt to dictate everything concerning our bodies, from abortion to food, and drinking water to drugs.

And you will allow them to define food? Besides, gov't already "regulates" our bodies to some extent. Try having your body drive a car 100 mph, talk on a cell phone, and be drunk at the same time. The gov't dictates abortion, even encourages it, as well as so many other things. But there is the ability to discern for those who've not that capability. Drugs are good for losing that function in individuals and that effects the whole. Oh, and I do believe in freedom, not license, as I know those that want what they want will simply ignore the gov't and factor in their calculations the price of their actions. It's a market driven experience and that's how the game is played.
Besides, in this case, I did not know two wrongs make a right, other than in the English language.
Got to go, lunch is over!

[Hotspring 44]

I talked about FOOD products, not gasoline or tobacco or anything else, same as with the motto of my grandmother. (at that time there wasn't much junk food available- but I know what it is, therefore, I can still live by that motto- also- a little bit junk food once in a wile will not get me into the hospital, or I hope so)

I could say the same thing about a little bit of rat poison or illicit drugs too; "once in a wile will not get me into the hospital, or I hope so" to make the same point, the point I believe you're making is that you're informed enough to know that a bag of potato chips every now and then isn't by itself going to cause a heart attack, make you morbidly obese, or clog your arteries.

There is something else I thought about: someone can write and talk about that walnuts and cherries are good for your heart etc... that act of recommendation can be called "medicate". So, if you write on a food packaging that that product is good for so and so, that actually by " law" would mean you medicate.

Are you a trial lawyer? If that is the law, I think it's an arbitrary assumption that the law that you site, means what you say it means in this case.

By "law" medicate falls under medication. Of course that sounds picking at something,...

...

That in this case, certainly sounds more like grasping at straws then accurately interpreting a particular law to me!

[quote=edie;111479]...but if one does it, others have the right to do so too, then anybody can write and make statements what so ever.

Correct! I think it's called freedom of speech! and in some cases, freedom of the press!

Perhaps thats what the FDA was concerned about- by "law" it is not allowed to medicate food on its packaging. Its nothing personal or about the food. In the long run it might make it simpler to keep the food and the research about it and what it does separate... just an other thought...

"Perhaps" you say? Does that mean you're not even sure of exactly what the FDA was actually "concerned about"?

My questions (why does the FDA allow potato chips to be advertised as “heart healthy” and not walnuts? and Where is the evidence that Diamond Foods Inc "advised" people to eat walnuts to "cure" or "treat" any ailments?) has still not adequately been answered. Those questions still stand on solid foundation.
The FDA seems to be ( pardon the pun) cherry picking who they are going after for that, and grasping at straws and overstepping with their absurd interpretation of what "medicating food", by "law" actually means.

The obesity problem in America is one example of how the FDA and the government officials that appoint them have been corrupted by the large mega food corporations.

The FDA is too busy kowtowing to them instead of doing their own work about the research that is available to those who know where to find it.

The FDA has spent too much time approving of dangerous prescription drugs instead of following up on the actual peer reviewed research of basic properties of certain, natural, healthy, foods, of which are beneficial and healthy for people to eat.

Do you suppose that maybe it is because those healthy foods are not patentable?... (. At least not until Monsanto gets away with stealing other people's land in destroying other peoples products by way of their GM corn: for example: pollinating other people's cornfields to the point of destroying other farmers organic corn product and ruining their ability to grow organic corn anywhere within hundreds of miles in some cases of the Monsanto corn.).

the FDA is supposed to do a service for the public, not a disservice!

[Hotspring 44]

We need food to eat and live, but we don't need drugs.

I disagree. My nephew is a diabetic, and he has to get his life-sustaining insulin prescribed by Dr.. he cannot get his life-sustaining insulin without a doctor's prescription, for good reason, I might add. But nonetheless, insulin is still a drug And a life sustaining substance for him.

What about vitamin D And the claims that are on milk cartons about how the added vitamin D and the calcium in the milk are good for strong healthy bones? Could it be that the dairy industry had its grasp around FDA's neck at some point in the past?

And we don't need to have most of the crap advertised that are purchased.

The general public still buys that "crap" and is so easy to manipulate using certain media structures to keep them buying more things in different forms, of that same "crap",isn't it?

Do you wish to advertise drugs?

LenInSebastopol, I'm curious as to what context you meant with that question?

Wouldn't that be a kick! Your equivocation between drugs and food is astounding! Yes, you use the principles of logic the same correct way, but the issues compared are not equivalent. It's as if one says, "I am hungry" and then eats their arm or a stone.

actually the "kick!" ( in the teeth) is the fact that it is illegal to produce cannabis food (I'm not referring to THC) in this country. But we can buy them from other countries. "Hemp food is the highest source of essential fatty acids in the plant kingdom"

About 30–35% of the weight of hempseed is hempseed oil or hemp oil, an edible oil that contains about 80% essential fatty acids (EFAs); i.e., linoleic acid, omega-6 (LA, 55%), alpha-linolenic acid, omega-3 (ALA, 22%), in addition to gamma-linolenic acid, omega-6 (GLA, 1–4%) and stearidonic acid, omega-3 (SDA, 0–2%). Whole hempseed also contains about 25% of a highly-digestible protein, where 1/3 is edestin and 2/3 are albumins. Its amino acid profile is close to "complete" when compared to more common sources of proteins such as meat, milk, eggs and soy.[20] The proportions of linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid in one tablespoon (15 ml) per day of hemp oil easily provides human daily requirements for EFAs. Unlike flaxseed oil, hemp oil can be used continuously without developing a deficiency or other imbalance of EFAs.[21] This has been demonstrated in a clinical study, where the daily ingestion of flaxseed oil decreased the endogenous production of GLA.[21] Hempseed is an adequate source of calcium and iron. Whole hempseeds are also a good source of phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, copper and manganese. Hempseed contains no gluten and therefore would not trigger symptoms of celiac disease. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Nutrition

of course there are those who choose to be ill informed enough that they would prevent all of the people in this country from having a nutritional food available.
Because of that way of thinking, hemp seed is still illegal to be produced in this country mainly because of fears that somehow, their children will end up as a helpless drug addict because of it. That goes to show us, that ill-informed people can cause harm to other people because of fear or so-called good intentions.

Advertising aspirin or advocating removing cannabis from schedule 1 on the federal narcotics list is a far cry from somebody eating their own arm or a stone as being somehow medicinal! However that being said, calcium, for example is considered a metal on the periodic table of the elements. So is consuming calcium supplements, the equivalent of eating a stone using that interpretation?

Twain was right, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics!

It takes knowledge and careful consideration of all the facts to decipher the difference between lies and the facts to actually have the knowledge of what the facts are and what they mean.

BTW I never (nor do I think anybody else on this thread so far has) advocated it was okay for a food packaging company to lie on their package! It would be absurd to say so.

One doctor rights one book and we are to abandon the pharmacy industry en masse?

My simple and basic answer to that would be, no. but there is a multitude of issues where the public en masse is ill-informed and overly depends upon the pharmaceutical industry to solve to many of their problems with "pharmaceutical drugs".

The public needs easier access to the information that what is in easily available now.
Sometimes some of that information is on the packaging of certain foods at which point it can be further researched beyond the packaging label from that point by the consumer to further inform his or herself on the claims/statements on the packaging.

And 14% are ascribed to prescribed drugs, eh? Wonder if there were "complications" in the statistical compiling and/or analysis. Give me a break, and if were double that number, the alternative is....pain? Suffering? No relief of symptoms, let alone cure for the other 75% of the population?

BTW it is well-documented that some of the schedule one drugs (narcotics) do in fact, relieve pain and symptoms.

So what is the relief of symptoms, cure ,alternatives to the pain and suffering...? ...Answer: Sometimes there isn't, and sometimes very expensive unaffordable doctor and/or hospital visits, or for some, unfortunately, illicit, unregulated, illegal, dangerous, contaminated drugs.

If one is to solely depend on pharmaceuticals, and not other alternatives, like for example; acupuncture, meditation, or a healthy alternative diet, then some of those individuals might want the FDA to do all of their homework for them, ( Nanny State) and not be so into making their simple overprotected lives too complicated for their pathetic malnourished brains!

So are you saying the gov't may have an opinion but have nothing to do in the regulation?
But they are "protecting us" from ourselves and the market, while they "educate" us until we come to believe in what they want. So more gov't is better? You want them to define "organic" as it will be so within about 5 years!

LenInSebastopol, how did you come up with a statement like that from:

what someguy wrote: So clearly the drugs that the government is telling us are safe are NOT safe at all. Meanwhile, no one has ever died from using marijuana. But the government doesn't tell you that, do they? No, because the pharmaceutical companies that the FDA is in bed with want to sell their patentable, synthetic form of marijuana, Marinol. Natural substances are not patentable, so not much money can be made off of them. Same goes for the sugary cereals. Processed, denatured foods with added chemicals and preservatives have a much higher profit margin than natural, whole foods with life-promoting properties. It's clear that these regulatory agencies are actually working against the interests of the people, promoting unhealthy things as healthy and using fear-mongering to keep us from exercising our freedom of choice. The situation is the same whether we are talking about food or drugs.

?

And you will allow them to define food?

I don't mean to answer this question for anybody else, but; if it were up to me I would not.

Besides, gov't already "regulates" our bodies to some extent. Try having your body drive a car 100 mph, talk on a cell phone, and be drunk at the same time.

I have enough common sense, and consideration for my fellow citizens, so I'm not going to "try" that!

The gov't dictates abortion,...

...even encourages it,...

some people come up with the weirdest conclusions! . This one takes the cake!

...as well as so many other things. But there is the ability to discern for those who've not that capability. Drugs are good for losing that function in individuals and that effects the whole.

Also does watching too much misinformation being disseminated on the boob tube!

Oh, and I do believe in freedom, not license, as I know those that want what they want will simply ignore the gov't and factor in their calculations the price of their actions.

AIG, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and even government officials etc. etc. Those are typical actions for a corpocracy society. I think that's what you mean by "license".... ... enough money = license.

It's a market driven experience and that's how the game is played.

Yup sure enough has been.

Besides, in this case, I did not know two wrongs make a right, other than in the English language.
Got to go, lunch is over!

maybe that is so but I do know that, three 90° turns to the left does! LOL!

[LenInSebastopol]

I disagree. My nephew is a diabetic, and he has to get his life-sustaining insulin prescribed by Dr.. he cannot get his life-sustaining insulin without a doctor's prescription, for good reason, I might add. But nonetheless, insulin is still a drug And a life sustaining substance for him.

Yes. OK. It is my error in not covering those kinds of drugs. The issues Jeff & I were writing about was not the kind that fight chronic illness but other kinds of drugs. Maybe you skipped a beat?

What about vitamin D And the claims that are on milk cartons about how the added vitamin D and the calcium in the milk are good for strong healthy bones? Could it be that the dairy industry had its grasp around FDA's neck at some point in the past?

Could it be a historical issue and fact? And now this administration wants to address those and similar issues in matters of health, food, language and what is "medicine" and "organic" and what food manufactures, growers and distributors can say. A whole new world, all for your benefit!

LenInSebastopol, I'm curious as to what context you meant with that question?

Another thread is gives context to the question of drug legalization. The thread, elsewhere, is about Mexican Cartels.

BTW I never (nor do I think anybody else on this thread so far has) advocated it was okay for a food packaging company to lie on their package! It would be absurd to say so.

It's been several days since I checked this thread, but I believe that IS the issue we are discussing. It is not that such lie, but what the gov't wants to direct, under penalty of law, what may be said on and by the food industry. Let's call it prevarication.

The public needs easier access to the information that what is in easily available now. Sometimes some of that information is on the packaging of certain foods at which point it can be further researched beyond the packaging label from that point by the consumer to further inform his or herself on the claims/statements on the packaging.

I have no idea on how to address the issues you've identified. For example I don't know what you mean, "the public needs easier access to the information that what is in easily available now." If it is easily available now, then why do they need it MORE easily available?
For example, alcohol, should that be labeled, DON'T DRINK TO MUCH on the label?
It seems if folks want to know, they can get the information from a lot of sources, no?

If one is to solely depend on pharmaceuticals, and not other alternatives, like for example; acupuncture, meditation, or a healthy alternative diet, then some of those individuals might want the FDA to do all of their homework for them, ( Nanny State) and not be so into making their simple overprotected lives too complicated for their pathetic malnourished brains!

How come in these issues the public is always "stupid"? It is simply made up of folks like you and me, but are always need "education" and such, when most mean "have them see it my way".

Quote:
LenInSebastopol wrote:
And you will allow them to define food?

I don't mean to answer this question for anybody else, but; if it were up to me I would not.

Well, that ends our discussion, and thanks for responding.

[Hotspring 44]

Yes. OK. It is my error in not covering those kinds of drugs. The issues Jeff & I were writing about was not the kind that fight chronic illness but other kinds of drugs. Maybe you skipped a beat?

I'm not the one that's missing a beat here.
Omega three fatty acids that are in some foods like walnuts do fight (or at least are a factor to mitigate) certain particular chronic illnesses, but it's more a matter of nutrition. Not so that food is somehow all of a sudden becomes a drug just because of labeling on package.
I do understand the point you're trying to make. But for one thing I disagree with what the FDA has done in regards to the diamond Walnut packaging.

I could not find online what the packaging said. But when I went to the store the other day I read what it said on the packaging of the diamond walnuts. It doesn't make any claims that it is a medicine. In fact, Cheerios and other brand-name cereals, milk, , orange juice, and a whole myriad of other things make claims that seem to me to be more of the same that the FDA is trying to stop the walnut packaging company from saying on their packaging.

Like I said before, just because the FDA is spending too much time on approving dangerous drugs, and not investigating or completely ignoring the fact about Omega 3 fatty acids and the content of such in products like walnuts does not in my opinion give the FDA permission to dictate what the law is on only selected companies, particularly when that kind of packaging is the norm and the peer-reviewed overwhelming scientific data does support what it says on the packaging.

Could it be a historical issue and fact? And now this administration wants to address those and similar issues in matters of health, food, language and what is "medicine" and "organic" and what food manufactures, growers and distributors can say. A whole new world, all for your benefit!

Not for my benefit!
I'm not sure what you're getting at is far as the historical issue is concerned.
Law must to apply equally to all under the law, not selective justice!

Although it's not related to food here is an example of what selective justice can do: Testimony of the star witness: Witness Nick Bailey, who provided the cornerstone testimony upon which the conviction was based, was subsequently convicted of extortion; upon being given 10 years in prison Bailey cooperated with prosecutors to lighten his own sentence. Although he engaged in over 70 interviews with the prosecution against Siegelman, none of the notes detailing these interviews were shared with the defense. In addition, after the case was tried it was confirmed that the check he testified he saw Scrushy write for Siegelman was actually written days later, when he was not actually present.[21][22] Partiality of the jury: Following the trial, doubts were raised as to the jury's impartiality based on emails exchanged between two jurors during the trial.[23] The presiding judge refused to examine this issue, insisting, "I do not want to deliberate too much about these e-mails".[23] Documents obtained by Time magazine in November 2008 revealed that one or more jurors had repeatedly contacted the government's legal team during the trial. The documents also indicated that prosecutors interviewed two jurors while the court was reviewing charges of juror misconduct, in violation of the judge's instruction that no contact with jurors should occur without his permission.[24] Page source: Don Siegelman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another thread is gives context to the question of drug legalization. The thread, elsewhere, is about Mexican Cartels.

Yes, I have been reading the thread. I will post something on that thread next

It's been several days since I checked this thread, but I believe that IS the issue we are discussing. It is not that such lie, but what the gov't wants to direct, under penalty of law, what may be said on and by the food industry. Let's call it prevarication.

As I asked before, where are the proofs that diamond walnuts on the packaging is somehow misleading the public?

As I said previously on this post I read what the diamond Walnut packaging says on it when I went to the store the other day. It is no different in principle than many other food packaging labels in the same store.

I have no idea on how to address the issues you've identified.

That is painfully obvious!

How come in these issues the public is always "stupid"?...

There is a big difference between uninformed, ill informed and being stupid!

When people don't have information because of an access issue they’re not necessarily stupid they are just misinformed, ignorant or inadequately informed.
besides that in this case the government actually requires packaged food to have certain information on it, such as ingredients and nutritional values as far as fat, calories, vitamins, etc..

… It is simply made up of folks like you and me, but are always need "education" and such, when most mean "have them see it my way".

You're certainly no stranger to that function!... ...("have them see it my way".)

[LenInSebastopol]

I'm not the one that's missing a beat here. Omega three fatty acids that are in some foods like walnuts do fight (or at least are a factor to mitigate) certain particular chronic illnesses, but it's more a matter of nutrition. Not so that food is somehow all of a sudden becomes a drug just because of labeling on package. I do understand the point you're trying to make. But for one thing I disagree with what the FDA has done in regards to the diamond Walnut packaging.
I could not find online what the packaging said. But when I went to the store the other day I read what it said on the packaging of the diamond walnuts. It doesn't make any claims that it is a medicine. In fact, Cheerios and other brand-name cereals, milk, , orange juice, and a whole myriad of other things make claims that seem to me to be more of the same that the FDA is trying to stop the walnut packaging company from saying on their packaging.
Like I said before, just because the FDA is spending too much time on approving dangerous drugs, and not investigating or completely ignoring the fact about Omega 3 fatty acids and the content of such in products like walnuts does not in my opinion give the FDA permission to dictate what the law is on only selected companies, particularly when that kind of packaging is the norm and the peer-reviewed overwhelming scientific data does support what it says on the packaging.

I believe we agree and what you are doing is called 'begging the question'. You see, the FDA in choosing this product is making some new statement about its authority in labeling, discerning, and issuing policy and regulations and will challenge the food industry in order to solidify the power it is trying to obtain. That is one method of how regulations come into being by way of the courts. All involved are lawyers and since the legislators will not pass such laws, this is a way around increasing the size, scope and authority of the officials.

Quote:
LenInSebastopol wrote:
Could it be a historical issue and fact? And now this administration wants to address those and similar issues in matters of health, food, language and what is "medicine" and "organic" and what food manufactures, growers and distributors can say. A whole new world, all for your benefit!

Not for my benefit!
I'm not sure what you're getting at is far as the historical issue is concerned.

It was my poor attempt at humor, of which there seems to be a lack of out in Point Arena. And I have poor writing skills.

Quote:

LenInSebastopol wrote:
It's been several days since I checked this thread, but I believe that IS the issue we are discussing. It is not that such lie, but what the gov't wants to direct, under penalty of law, what may be said on and by the food industry. Let's call it prevarication.

As I asked before, where are the proofs that diamond walnuts on the packaging is somehow misleading the public?
As I said previously on this post I read what the diamond Walnut packaging says on it when I went to the store the other day. It is no different in principle than many other food packaging labels in the same store.

I think we have been over this, no? I believe what you have written. As it is no different in principle, it could be the case that the FDA wants to make it a principle, no? And it will do so by taking one of those companies to court.

Quote:
LenInSebastopol wrote:
… It is simply made up of folks like you and me, but are always need "education" and such, when most mean "have them see it my way".

You're certainly no stranger to that function!... ...("have them see it my way".)

You got me. All I can say is, "yes, dear".

[Hotspring 44]

I believe we agree and what you are doing is called 'begging the question'. You see, the FDA in choosing this product is making some new statement about its authority in labeling, discerning, and issuing policy and regulations and will challenge the food industry in order to solidify the power it is trying to obtain. That is one method of how regulations come into being by way of the courts. All involved are lawyers and since the legislators will not pass such laws, this is a way around increasing the size, scope and authority of the officials.

Your statement, (“All involved are lawyers and since the legislators will not pass such laws, this is a way around increasing the size, scope and authority of the officials.”) is profoundly strange to me. Aren't the authorities in the FDA officials too?

It was my poor attempt at humor, of which there seems to be a lack of out in Point Arena. And I have poor writing skills.

My writing skills aren't great (to say the least), if it weren't for the word processor it (my writing) would be horribly misspelled gibberish! LOL!

Sometimes the emoticons (Smiles) help me relate my obscure sense of humor.

Sometimes it's all too easy to take things seriously on these discussion board things.

I think we have been over this, no? I believe what you have written. As it is no different in principle, it could be the case that the FDA wants to make it a principle, no?

To answer your first question, yes.
To answer your second question; yes, but I think the word that best describes it is precedent.

And it will do so by taking one of those companies to court.

What a horrible senseless waste of taxpayer’s money!
I think that the FDA will lose this case anyway, if it comes to court in the first place.

Just consider how the Supreme Court is stacked, usually citing in favor of big business recently, particularly in regard to free speech, regardless whether or not it is in print, or somebody making a speech on a podium.

I also think that even if diamond food does not have the money to hire lawyers to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, Other large, well-funded food packaging Corp.'s do, and they are likely to challenge the decision, because it will affect their labeling.

When it all comes down to it no matter what the courts decide. The fact is that the FDA itself and the laws require food packaging to have nutritional values listed and quantified on its labeling.

For the FDA to construe that the labeling on the packaging of the walnuts that I read at the store the other day is somehow medical advice, prognosis, diagnosis, or prescription, is beyond pale, ridiculous, absurd, misconstrued, ludicrous, preposterous, outrageous, contemptible, extreme, and offensive to any somewhat nutritionally knowledgeable, sensible person that uses as much unprocessed food as healthily possible (affordable in my case) to stay strong and healthy.

[LenInSebastopol]

Your statement, (“All involved are lawyers and since the legislators will not pass such laws, this is a way around increasing the size, scope and authority of the officials.”) is profoundly strange to me. Aren't the authorities in the FDA officials too?

The "lawyers" remark is kind of true. All folks in the judicial system, save jurors, are lawyers. Most congress critters are lawyers as well. That is all that I meant by that remark. NONE of the parties mentioned, including FDA officials will do anything without consulting "legal" first, and you know that's true..
The bifurcation in bureaucracy, as well as the language used in it is strange. At the tippy top are folks appointed by the person in office. Middle management is more 'fluid' kind of like contractors, they serve 'at the whim' of higher ups, and the civil servants (tested, tried & true) do the labor. Folks can rise up (as in a good republic) based on merit, skill, and some other magic. So they are all "officials" in a sense in that they feel "entitled" but in the FAR end they do work on your behalf, but that seems to be getting away from US. The real agenda is to 'get more money' and 'increase' the bureau, as is the nature of gov't and such entities. Biz does the same thing but there is a built in self-checking mechanism: money. Not so with gov't. They need more, they take more....from US. And then tell US it is in our interests.

My writing skills aren't great (to say the least), if it weren't for the word processor it (my writing) would be horribly misspelled gibberish! LOL!
Sometimes the emoticons (Smiles) help me relate my obscure sense of humor.
Sometimes it's all too easy to take things seriously on these discussion board things.

I run this app and cheat like a major dog that I am! Price is right and it's small.
Check spelling with tinySpell: a tiny portable free spell checker

As for 'too serious', well those emoticons do help. We tend to lose our sense of humor and when we do we are only good for chord wood!

Quote:

LenInSebastopol wrote:
I think we have been over this, no? I believe what you have written. As it is no different in principle, it could be the case that the FDA wants to make it a principle, no?

To answer your first question, yes.
To answer your second question; yes, but I think the word that best describes it is precedent.

Thank you. That IS the correct word. At my age words fly away and it's like trying to hold water in my hand.

Quote:
LenInSebastopol wrote:
And it will do so by taking one of those companies to court.

What a horrible senseless waste of taxpayer’s money!
I think that the FDA will lose this case anyway, if it comes to court in the first place.
Just consider how the Supreme Court is stacked, usually citing in favor of big business recently, particularly in regard to free speech, regardless whether or not it is in print, or somebody making a speech on a podium.
I also think that even if diamond food does not have the money to hire lawyers to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, Other large, well-funded food packaging Corp.'s do, and they are likely to challenge the decision, because it will affect their labeling.
When it all comes down to it no matter what the courts decide. The fact is that the FDA itself and the laws require food packaging to have nutritional values listed and quantified on its labeling.

The 'waste of money' issue is something WE can agree upon, but there are political and monied interests that have different game to hunt. I am sorry to say. The Supremes will not hear the case for years and then the stack will be in another direction, as this president will not appoint another Alito, Thomas, or Roberts. Until then the gov't officials will try and choose a judge who may be considered "sympathetic" to their "cause" and ideation of what "should be" for the "good of the people". The other approach is 'the nudge' of regulations which can be done by FDA or any other gov't officials. Laws are written broadly and can be interpreted in several ways, regulations derived from laws and are more specific and are interpreted a bit closer to fit the issues identified. Change the language of the reg, change the outcome!

For the FDA to construe that the labeling on the packaging of the walnuts that I read at the store the other day is somehow medical advice, prognosis, diagnosis, or prescription, is beyond pale, ridiculous, absurd, misconstrued, ludicrous, preposterous, outrageous, contemptible, extreme, and offensive to any somewhat nutritionally knowledgeable, sensible person that uses as much unprocessed food as healthily possible (affordable in my case) to stay strong and healthy.

No disagreement. Now we need to convince others because YOU know they are moving forward in that terrible night!
The below is a product of Googling 'organic regulations federal'.
The product of that search, below, defines the words of the
REGULATION. The word "organic" means, accordingly,
"Organic. A labeling term that refers to an agricultural product produced in accordance with the Act and the regulations in this part."
which is to say, "whatever we say it means".
Maybe they don't have to go to court.....just change the regs.
Thanks! Now I am as depressed as you!


Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: