Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

FDA Says Walnuts Are Illegal Drugs

Crap I better hide my walnuts!! The man is coming for me soon. HAHA. Hope I don't get fired for having Illegal Drugs in my desk at work.

And what about the kids OHHH the kids they will be hooked on this bad stuff for years!!! What is this world coming to. The kids can't even have a snack before the FDA makes it Illegal.

By the way I'm also going to go into the Illegal busness of Walnuts. I'm going to be rich soon.
 
WarcraftJJS said:
By the way I'm also going to go into the Illegal busness of Walnuts. I'm going to be rich soon.
Click to expand...

source please? :bigok:

It's ok, I've got a 'script
 
Woah it's ridiculous that the FDA is in bed with all the big name food distributors that contribute to America's heart diseas as well as to the pharmaceutical companies.... SAD world we live in isn't it?
 
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:

Invalid Link Removed
 
Mulletsoldier said:
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:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

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.
 
HereToStudy said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
MAxximal said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah this definitely puts things in perspective....
 
MAxximal said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Example: I don't think that the government should be able to ban SD. I do believe however that if the label says 10mg/ml of 2a,17 a-dimethyl-5a-androst-3-one-17b-ol then they have the right to enforce that it is 10mg/ml of 2a,17 a-dimethyl-5a-androst-3-one-17b-ol.
 
Anything to help the pharmaceutical companies continue to make money on medicine that almost always has the side effect of "increased risk of death", right guys?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top