FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
unapproved new drug.

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm

All these years, I thought it was a breakfast cereal!

Mark Thorson wrote:
> FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
> unapproved new drug.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
>
> All these years, I thought it was a breakfast cereal!

When a manufacturer makes explicit health claims as they did they are
declaring it is a drug.

"George" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
>> unapproved new drug.
>>
>> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
>>
>> All these years, I thought it was a breakfast cereal!
>
> When a manufacturer makes explicit health claims as they did they are
> declaring it is a drug.
>

Don't think I agree with your statement, but I do believe it is verges on
false advertizing.

Promoting something as 'health food' just because it won't kill you (as
opposed to their other cereals that probably could kill you) is pretty
misleading.

Jon

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
> unapproved new drug.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
>
> All these years, I thought it was a breakfast cereal!

Maybe if they took the time they spent on this and put it towards keeping
our food supply SAFE, they'd make some real progress.

kimberly

"Zeppo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
>>> unapproved new drug.
>>>
>>> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
>>>
>>> All these years, I thought it was a breakfast cereal!
>>
>> When a manufacturer makes explicit health claims as they did they are
>> declaring it is a drug.
>>
>
> Don't think I agree with your statement, but I do believe it is verges on
> false advertizing.
>
> Promoting something as 'health food' just because it won't kill you (as
> opposed to their other cereals that probably could kill you) is pretty
> misleading.

They made a direct claim it lowered your cholesterol 10% if you ate it every
day. No if ands or buts, they said it absolutely lowered your cholesterol.
That's better than some statin drugs.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zeppo" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "George" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
>>>> unapproved new drug.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
>>>>
>>>> All these years, I thought it was a breakfast cereal!
>>>
>>> When a manufacturer makes explicit health claims as they did they are
>>> declaring it is a drug.
>>>
>>
>> Don't think I agree with your statement, but I do believe it is verges on
>> false advertizing.
>>
>> Promoting something as 'health food' just because it won't kill you (as
>> opposed to their other cereals that probably could kill you) is pretty
>> misleading.
>
> They made a direct claim it lowered your cholesterol 10% if you ate it
> every day. No if ands or buts, they said it absolutely lowered your
> cholesterol. That's better than some statin drugs.
>
> Paul

Yeah, but... Just because something works as well (or even better than) a
drug doesn't make it a drug.

If you look at the fine print it says something like 'when used in
conjunction with a healthy diet and a regular exercise program'. This is
actually true. If you eat cheerios (or oatmeal or any other cereal that
isn't all sugar) every day instead of bacon and eggs, and eat your fruit and
veggies and don't eat a lot of other fatty foods and work out it WILL lower
your cholesterol. I know because it worked for me.

The only issue is whether its cheating to have the banner on the box.

BTW, statins lowered my cholesterol 40%. I don't need them anymore but they
were scary effective.

Jon

In article >,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:


> >> Mark Thorson wrote:

> >>> FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
> >>> unapproved new drug.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm

> They made a direct claim it lowered your cholesterol 10% if you ate it every
> day. No if ands or buts, they said it absolutely lowered your cholesterol.
> That's better than some statin drugs.

For those who want to Google or search, note that it is "Cheerios", not
"Cherrios".

It looks to me like some marketing genius at GM took the approved
language from the FDA and cleaned it up, taking out all those wishy
washy words and complicated stuff, and adding a specific claim instead
of just stating that it could help (an unspecified amount).

I think the FDA is claiming that because GM took out some of the [part
of a healthy diet] stuff, they made it seem like Cheerios can substitute
for the lack of a healthy diet, making it a drug rather than a food, as
far as reducing coronary heart disease. In addition, although maybe all
of the words and phrases appeared somewhere on the box or the web site,
the size and color of type made it appear to act as a drug rather than a
helpful food.

In short, I agree with Paul. These weren't vague claims that could be
made by any food high in fiber, but specific claims that didn't
acknowledge the rest of a person's diet.

The score? GM has 15 days (from receipt of the above cited letter) to
correct the problem. My best guess is that they'll post paper on each
box out there, with incomprehensible details containing all of the
official FDA language, and tell the consumer to read *that* rather than
the big print on the box. But that's just my guess.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"Zeppo" > wrote:

> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Zeppo" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "George" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>>> FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
> >>>> unapproved new drug.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s7188c.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> All these years, I thought it was a breakfast cereal!
> >>>
> >>> When a manufacturer makes explicit health claims as they did they are
> >>> declaring it is a drug.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Don't think I agree with your statement, but I do believe it is verges on
> >> false advertizing.
> >>
> >> Promoting something as 'health food' just because it won't kill you (as
> >> opposed to their other cereals that probably could kill you) is pretty
> >> misleading.
> >
> > They made a direct claim it lowered your cholesterol 10% if you ate it
> > every day. No if ands or buts, they said it absolutely lowered your
> > cholesterol. That's better than some statin drugs.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Yeah, but... Just because something works as well (or even better than) a
> drug doesn't make it a drug.

The FDA was saying that it was being promoted as though it was a drug.
You can't do that, not without going through the process of getting it
approved as a drug.

> If you look at the fine print it says something like 'when used in
> conjunction with a healthy diet and a regular exercise program'. This is
> actually true. If you eat cheerios (or oatmeal or any other cereal that
> isn't all sugar) every day instead of bacon and eggs, and eat your fruit and
> veggies and don't eat a lot of other fatty foods and work out it WILL lower
> your cholesterol. I know because it worked for me.

That was the complaint. GM said it would work, but left out all the
details. The FDA is claiming that you can't just bury the "fine print"
and make the claims in big letters. If GM had put on the box the stuff
you posted above, there wouldn't have been a problem. They chopped off
all those details but still claimed it worked.

> The only issue is whether its cheating to have the banner on the box.

Yup.

> BTW, statins lowered my cholesterol 40%. I don't need them anymore but they
> were scary effective.

They are doing it for me.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"The Other Guy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:19:50 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
>>FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
>>unapproved new drug.
>
> I take it you DIDN'T read the whole FDA letter.
>
> Basically, they're saying IF GM continues to use
> the same advertising claims, they WILL have to
> actually produce a medical study that proves
> those claims.
>
> Other companies have ALSO been warned.
>
> And its ABOUT damned TIME!
>
> I HOPE the FDA goes after the yoghurt claims next!

I hope they go after the dick pills. I am sick of all these bimbos on TV
talking about how a guy who doesn't have a tool the size of a horse's just
is not any use to them whatsoever. Maybe they are just too big themselves?

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> I hope they go after the dick pills. I am sick of all these bimbos on TV
> talking about how a guy who doesn't have a tool the size of a horse's just
> is not any use to them whatsoever. Maybe they are just too big themselves?

FDA did go after they guy behind the dick pills.
He just started a 25-year prison sentence.
(Of course, he'll serve much less.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyte#...and_conviction

On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:48:15 -0700, The Other Guy wrote:

> On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:19:50 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
>>FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
>>unapproved new drug.
>
> I take it you DIDN'T read the whole FDA letter.
>
> Basically, they're saying IF GM continues to use
> the same advertising claims, they WILL have to
> actually produce a medical study that proves
> those claims.
>
> Other companies have ALSO been warned.
>
> And its ABOUT damned TIME!
>
> I HOPE the FDA goes after the yoghurt claims next!
>
> To reply by email, lose the Ks...

i really can't see what is controversial about the f.d.a. action. if you
make medical claims, you have to back them up. not hard to understand.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:48:15 -0700, The Other Guy wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:19:50 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>FDA tells General Mills that Cherrios is an
> >>unapproved new drug.
> >
> > I take it you DIDN'T read the whole FDA letter.
> >
> > Basically, they're saying IF GM continues to use
> > the same advertising claims, they WILL have to
> > actually produce a medical study that proves
> > those claims.
> >

>
> i really can't see what is controversial about the f.d.a. action. if you
> make medical claims, you have to back them up. not hard to understand.
>
> your pal,
> blake

All they need to do is relabel the boxes the way any other supplement is
labelled:
'This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not
intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.'

Simple enough.