FDA Eases Rules on Food Health Claims

[zakur]

FDA Eases Rules On Touting Food As Healthful

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

 

[rwald]

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

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

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

Yea, yea, interest groups, etc.

 

[Dr. Imago]

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

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

-TT

 

[shanek]

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

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

 

[shanek]

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

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

 

[Dr. Imago]

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

Oh no... here we go again! I am not rehashing this argument with you, Shane.

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

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

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

-TT