http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Walnut-LEF-article-by-Bill-Faloon1.pdf
This is Simply Ridiculous :rasp:
This is Simply Ridiculous :rasp:
source please? :bigok:By the way I'm also going to go into the Illegal busness of Walnuts. I'm going to be rich soon.
I gotta guy for that.source please? :bigok:
It's ok, I've got a 'script
Thank god someone posted this. I agree with keeping the government out of supplements, but come on this article is so blatantly twisting the facts to make a point.The article is little more than silly, angry propaganda. This is a mislabeling issue, and not a classification issue.
In the same way that dietary supplements have regulations for which claims they may make, as per the standards pursuant to (primarily) the FTCA (Federal Trade Commission Act) § 5, and the DHSEA (Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act), the food industry is bound by the similar regulations.
As a result, there are restrictions as to what "health claims" both industries can make with regard to their products, and these restrictions include certain standards of evidence. According to the FDA, who is right in this instance, this particular company was making health claims without a sufficient amount of evidence to validate their specific health claims.
For reference, here are the allowable health claims for nuts:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/ucm064923.htm
Thank god someone posted this. I agree with keeping the government out of supplements, but come on this article is so blatantly twisting the facts to make a point.
None of that changes that a) the article is blatantly incorrect and b) the company was making specific health claims without meeting the standard of evidence.Bud you say "keeping the government out of supplements" is good; but what the "company" putting crap in the supplements, underdosed ingredients or maybe put half of the ingredients listed on the label?
Ah this definitely puts things in perspective....None of that changes that a) the article is blatantly incorrect and b) the company was making specific health claims without meeting the standard of evidence.
The FTC/FDA differentiate a claim into one of two types: a "structure/function claim" and a "health claim." A "structure/function" claim only makes claim based on the pharmacology of the compound, and does not make any positive claims as to the the health benefits it may have. I can assure you, this is a very fine line. A "health claim" then, obviously makes positive claims as to the health benefits a product may have.
An example would be:
"Certain studies suggest but do not prove that in conjunction with a healthy diet and exercise 'Compound X' may promote the healthy metabolism of 'other compound p'."
This is a structure/function claim.
"Walnuts cure ****!"
Is a health claim.
Oh I don't mean it in that way. I am actually for government regulation, but not in the sense of picking and choosing what ingredients can be in the market. I believe the government should enforce accurate labeling, but nothing more.Bud you say "keeping the government out of supplements" is good; but what the "company" putting crap in the supplements, underdosed ingredients or maybe put half of the ingredients listed on the label?