LTH Home

FDA says Walnuts are Drugs

FDA says Walnuts are Drugs
  • Forum HomePost Reply BackTop
     Page 1 of 3
  • FDA says Walnuts are Drugs

    Post #1 - November 9th, 2011, 12:03 pm
    Post #1 - November 9th, 2011, 12:03 pm Post #1 - November 9th, 2011, 12:03 pm
    Caught this announcement today -- because scientific papers have been published stating that walnuts have health benefits, and because walnut sellers include some of that info on their websites, the FDA has now declared that walnuts are drugs and therefore their sale needs to be regulated.

    Excerpt from FDA letter to walnut seller Diamond Foods:
    “Based on our review, we have concluded that your walnut products are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR).

    “Based on claims made on your firm’s website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.

    “Because of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs within the meaning of section 201 (g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(B)]. Your walnut products are also new drugs under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(p)] because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions. Therefore, under section 505(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)], they may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.


    It appears that Diamond Foods avoided "seizure or injunction" by removing all scientific information about health benefits from their site -- so they aren't going to be be shut down -- at least not yet. But still, if scientific research reveals a benefit for a food, someone selling that food should be allowed to mention those health benefits. (It's worth noting that a much bigger company -- Frito/Lay-PepsiCo -- is allowed to state that their chips are "heart healthy" because they use sunflower oil -- so the FDA is not being even-handed.)

    Anyway -- if you care about the health benefits of foods, it's a good idea to keep an eye on the FDA. They are not necessarily our friends.
    Last edited by Cynthia on November 9th, 2011, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #2 - November 9th, 2011, 12:10 pm
    Post #2 - November 9th, 2011, 12:10 pm Post #2 - November 9th, 2011, 12:10 pm
    If true, the issue wouldn't be with any of the studies nor of the sale of walnuts, but rather with a walnut seller making medical claims, wouldn't it? If I say my bacon cures cancer, that statement needs to be evaluated by the FDA (reasonably, I think... snake oil comes in many forms). It doesn't mean that the FDA is going to regulate bacon from now on.
    Dominic Armato
    Dining Critic
    The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com
  • Post #3 - November 9th, 2011, 12:12 pm
    Post #3 - November 9th, 2011, 12:12 pm Post #3 - November 9th, 2011, 12:12 pm
    Sounds like the Walnut Growers' and Sellers' Co-op hasn't been paying their protection money...er, I mean "campaign contributions".
  • Post #4 - November 9th, 2011, 12:13 pm
    Post #4 - November 9th, 2011, 12:13 pm Post #4 - November 9th, 2011, 12:13 pm
    Not sure how this is being reported (and I believe this story dates back to sometime earlier this year), but I think saying that walnuts are now going to be treated as drugs across the board is probably overstating it a bit. This is really directed to what claims the advertising and marketing materials are making. If an entity simply wants to sell walnuts without making any health claims, it will continue to be able to do so.

    The FDA took a similar stance against General Mills with respect to health claims for Cheerios back in 2009.
  • Post #5 - November 9th, 2011, 12:16 pm
    Post #5 - November 9th, 2011, 12:16 pm Post #5 - November 9th, 2011, 12:16 pm
    Dmnkly wrote:If true, the issue wouldn't be with any of the studies nor of the sale of walnuts, but rather with a walnut seller making medical claims, wouldn't it? If I say my bacon cures cancer, that statement needs to be evaluated by the FDA (reasonably, I think... snake oil comes in many forms). It doesn't mean that the FDA is going to regulate bacon from now on.


    If you made an unsupported claim that a product cured cancer, that would be questionable. However, if you said "the following scientific studies have shown that this product lowers cholesterol" -- and then list the studies -- that is not questionable. It is educational. The media regularly releases reports on health benefits of various foods or compounds in those foods. To share those reports would fall into the category of "freedom of speech," I would think. If the FDA wants to evaluate something, they should evaluate the scientific studies, not the person reporting the studies.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #6 - November 9th, 2011, 12:20 pm
    Post #6 - November 9th, 2011, 12:20 pm Post #6 - November 9th, 2011, 12:20 pm
    Matt wrote:Not sure how this is being reported (and I believe this story dates back to sometime earlier this year), but I think saying that walnuts are now going to be treated as drugs across the board is probably overstating it a bit. This is really directed to what claims the advertising and marketing materials are making. If an entity simply wants to sell walnuts without making any health claims, it will continue to be able to do so.

    The FDA took a similar stance against General Mills with respect to health claims for Cheerios back in 2009.


    I don't think repeating information from studies published by reliable scientific entities is the same as making health claims. And I don't think the FDA attacking Cheerios makes attacking walnuts okay.

    As for the timing -- the initial event is a couple of months old -- sometimes it takes a while for me to get to my non-work-related reports. But I searched, and no one here commented on it then or since, so I think it's still "news." Especially because this is an issue that was resolved only by the company caving in and removing the scientific reports from its site. Not exactly striking a blow for freedom of information.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #7 - November 9th, 2011, 12:25 pm
    Post #7 - November 9th, 2011, 12:25 pm Post #7 - November 9th, 2011, 12:25 pm
    Cynthia wrote:If you made an unsupported claim that a product cured cancer, that would be questionable. However, if you said "the following scientific studies have shown that this product lowers cholesterol" -- and then list the studies -- that is not questionable. It is educational.

    Depends. Were the studies performed by eight individuals who were paid by the makers of the product to eat it and then lick each other to see if they can taste less cholesterol in each other? There are good studies and bad studies. The purpose of the FDA review is to separate the former from the latter, is it not? Otherwise, I could devise any study I want and use its results to promote my bacon as a cure for cancer.

    Cynthia wrote:The media regularly releases reports on health benefits of various foods or compounds in those foods. To share those reports would fall into the category of "freedom of speech," I would think.

    Certainly. But as we all know, there are certain limits on freedom of speech. Advertisers aren't allowed to make bogus medical claims. I think that's a pretty good limit, though it's certainly a topic for debate.

    Cynthia wrote:If the FDA wants to evaluate something, they should evaluate the scientific studies, not the person reporting the studies.

    I believe that's exactly what they do. What leads you to believe something other than that is happening here? If a walnut producer wants to use studies to make health claims about walnuts, those studies have to be evaluated by the FDA.
    Dominic Armato
    Dining Critic
    The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com
  • Post #8 - November 9th, 2011, 12:36 pm
    Post #8 - November 9th, 2011, 12:36 pm Post #8 - November 9th, 2011, 12:36 pm
    Dmnkly wrote:Depends. Were the studies performed by eight individuals who were paid by the makers of the product to eat it and then lick each other to see if they can taste less cholesterol in each other? There are good studies and bad studies. The purpose of the FDA review is to separate the former from the latter, is it not? Otherwise, I could devise any study I want and use its results to promote my bacon as a cure for cancer.

    Certainly. But as we all know, there are certain limits on freedom of speech. Advertisers aren't allowed to make bogus medical claims. I think that's a pretty good limit, though it's certainly a topic for debate.

    I believe that's exactly what they do. What leads you to believe something other than that is happening here? If a walnut producer wants to use studies to make health claims about walnuts, those studies have to be evaluated by the FDA.


    More than 35 peer-reviewed studies have been published in several countries about the health benefits of walnuts. It is not some group of 8 guys who are off in a corner making this stuff up. To list a few of the studies on one's website should constitute freedom of information.

    The FDA has a track record of ignoring scientific studies related to nutrition. In this case, it did not review the scientific research, it simply went after the walnut sellers because they quoted some of the scientific studies.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #9 - November 9th, 2011, 12:47 pm
    Post #9 - November 9th, 2011, 12:47 pm Post #9 - November 9th, 2011, 12:47 pm
    Cynthia wrote:More than 35 peer-reviewed studies have been published in several countries about the health benefits of walnuts. It is not some group of 8 guys who are off in a corner making this stuff up.

    I'm not disputing that. The point is that when it comes to medical claims in advertising in the United States, the arbiter of what is and isn't good science is the FDA. If we agree that bad studies exist, and that producers shouldn't be allowed to simply use any study they want, there must be some entity that has the final say.

    Cynthia wrote:To list a few of the studies on one's website should constitute freedom of information.

    This is a far more conservative statement than you made above, and I honestly don't know that I have an opinion on it. Though again, by this logic, I should also be able to post my bogus bacon studies if there need be no arbiter of good science for simply referencing studies.

    Cynthia wrote:The FDA has a track record of ignoring scientific studies related to nutrition. In this case, it did not review the scientific research, it simply went after the walnut sellers because they quoted some of the scientific studies.

    The former may very well be the case! But that would be a criticism of the review process itself, and not the manner in which it's initiated. Also, it seems to me that the latter isn't correct based on your own quote, above:

    ...they may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.

    In other words, these claims must be evaluated. To be evaluated, you need to file an application. Then we'll review the studies. If studies must be reviewed, what method do you propose? That the FDA review every single study made regardless of whether an advertiser uses them to make a health claim? It seems far more practical to me to step in to do the review when somebody actually attempts to use the studies for advertising purposes, which is exactly what's happening here.

    I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand what you feel the appropriate course of action should be? If these studies are okay to mention on an advertising website and my bacon licking studies aren't, what entity should step in to make that determination if not the FDA?
    Dominic Armato
    Dining Critic
    The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com
  • Post #10 - November 9th, 2011, 12:53 pm
    Post #10 - November 9th, 2011, 12:53 pm Post #10 - November 9th, 2011, 12:53 pm
    Cynthia -- I was not trying to take the position that because the FDA has done this before that it is okay; more just pointing out that this is par for the course for the FDA. And my point about when the original story came out was not to get on your case for posting about stale news, but rather to just provide some context as there does not appear to have been much written on this (or any major reported developments) since June or July when this originally appeared.

    Whether one likes it or not, the FDA does have authority (or at least exerts authority in a manner that has not, to date, been overturned by the courts) over health claims made with respect to foods. There is a process to permit qualified health claims on labels and marketing materials if there is sufficient scientific support for the claim. Here is a listing of certain food-related (and some vitamin-related) claims that the FDA has permitted, subject to certain conditions, even where the scientific evidence was less than clear. Not sure what the specific issue was with the walnuts, but it seems that perhaps there was a bit of a pissing contest between the FDA and Diamond (incidentally, it appears that a complaint was initiated with FDA against Diamond in 2007 by the execrable Center for Science in the Public Interest) that pushed it to this level; seems there might have been an avenue to go through the qualified health claim process to get the claims approved (but I allow for the fact that there may be nuances about the types of claims and how they fit within the FDA regs that I just am not getting).
  • Post #11 - November 9th, 2011, 12:55 pm
    Post #11 - November 9th, 2011, 12:55 pm Post #11 - November 9th, 2011, 12:55 pm
    Also, Cynthia, to be clear, I'm certainly not trying to make the claim that the FDA is above reproach, or that there aren't plenty of aspects of their operation that are totally legitimate grounds for criticism and debate. It's just that in this particular instance, I'm not seeing how action A leads to criticism B, that's all.
    Dominic Armato
    Dining Critic
    The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com
  • Post #12 - November 9th, 2011, 1:03 pm
    Post #12 - November 9th, 2011, 1:03 pm Post #12 - November 9th, 2011, 1:03 pm
    Matt wrote:Whether one likes it or not, the FDA does have authority (or at least exerts authority in a manner that has not, to date, been overturned by the courts) over health claims made with respect to foods. There is a process to permit qualified health claims on labels and marketing materials if there is sufficient scientific support for the claim. Here is a listing of certain food-related (and some vitamin-related) claims that the FDA has permitted, subject to certain conditions, even where the scientific evidence was less than clear. Not sure what the specific issue was with the walnuts, but it seems that perhaps there was a bit of a pissing contest between the FDA and Diamond (incidentally, it appears that a complaint was initiated with FDA against Diamond in 2007 by the execrable Center for Science in the Public Interest) that pushed it to this level; seems there might have been an avenue to go through the qualified health claim process to get the claims approved (but I allow for the fact that there may be nuances about the types of claims and how they fit within the FDA regs that I just am not getting).


    Congress still has oversight over the FDA, so I'd just like to see folks become aware of what the FDA does so that they can contact their representatives if an issue arises that resonates for them. As for a process to approve listing health claims, as far as I'm concerned, if you just say "These scientific studies show...," there shouldn't be a need to get FDA approval to quote the studies. The company is not making the claim. They're just sharing the results of a study. It's freedom of information. If the FDA is worried about the statements, they should look at the studies, not the people quoting them.

    Try to imagine how long it would take to get a newspaper onto the street if the government had an approval process for every information source quoted in every story.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #13 - November 9th, 2011, 1:07 pm
    Post #13 - November 9th, 2011, 1:07 pm Post #13 - November 9th, 2011, 1:07 pm
    Cynthia wrote:As for a process to approve listing health claims, as far as I'm concerned, if you just say "These scientific studies show...," there shouldn't be a need to get FDA approval to quote the studies. The company is not making the claim. They're just sharing the results of a study. It's freedom of information.

    So just to be clear, you're okay with a bacon producer referencing studies such as my bacon licking example, because they're "just sharing the results of a study"? Because if so, that's definitely our point of disagreement :-)
    Dominic Armato
    Dining Critic
    The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com
  • Post #14 - November 9th, 2011, 1:21 pm
    Post #14 - November 9th, 2011, 1:21 pm Post #14 - November 9th, 2011, 1:21 pm
    Cynthia wrote:Congress still has oversight over the FDA, so I'd just like to see folks become aware of what the FDA does so that they can contact their representatives if an issue arises that resonates for them. As for a process to approve listing health claims, as far as I'm concerned, if you just say "These scientific studies show...," there shouldn't be a need to get FDA approval to quote the studies. The company is not making the claim. They're just sharing the results of a study. It's freedom of information. If the FDA is worried about the statements, they should look at the studies, not the people quoting them.

    Try to imagine how long it would take to get a newspaper onto the street if the government had an approval process for every information source quoted in every story.

    Yes, but a newspaper doesn't have the potential for effects that can hospitalize you.

    Dmnkly and others have it straight: FDA must specifically approve claims. If scientific studies are published, but the results are not statistically conclusive, or not well controlled, or have unscrupulous investigators, they're not good enough. Two studies, even one, can be enough if the claims are solid and the health benefit large.

    Yes, this seems overblown, but what's to stop a cigarette company from advertising that it prevents Parkinson's disease if their pet research institute publishes a paper (it actually does, but that's another show)? Or an herbal supplement company claiming that Stevia cures diabetes (I have no evidence of that). There's a standard, and everybody's held to it. It makes for slow marketing of new drugs (average of 10 months after submission, which can be 3-12 years of research before that -- but priority review for important new medicines should average 6 months, per congressional funding bills for the FDA).

    There's a fuzzy section that food and herbal marketers can use without enraging the beast that is FDA's Division of Drug Marketing and Communications: Don't claim to treat or prevent a disease, but merely maintain a healthy state.

    You can say that New Quarry Cereal helps maintain a healthy cholesterol level, for instance, but you can't say that it lowers cholesterol or prevents heart disease. You'd still better be able to back it up, but you don't need FDA's clearance first.
    What is patriotism, but the love of good things we ate in our childhood?
    -- Lin Yutang
  • Post #15 - November 9th, 2011, 1:22 pm
    Post #15 - November 9th, 2011, 1:22 pm Post #15 - November 9th, 2011, 1:22 pm
    Oh, and one more thing: FDA isn't saying Walnuts are Drugs, FDA is saying that Diamond's claiming they are, and they need to stop or prove it before marketing them as such.
    What is patriotism, but the love of good things we ate in our childhood?
    -- Lin Yutang
  • Post #16 - November 9th, 2011, 2:48 pm
    Post #16 - November 9th, 2011, 2:48 pm Post #16 - November 9th, 2011, 2:48 pm
    Dmnkly wrote:
    Cynthia wrote:As for a process to approve listing health claims, as far as I'm concerned, if you just say "These scientific studies show...," there shouldn't be a need to get FDA approval to quote the studies. The company is not making the claim. They're just sharing the results of a study. It's freedom of information.

    So just to be clear, you're okay with a bacon producer referencing studies such as my bacon licking example, because they're "just sharing the results of a study"? Because if so, that's definitely our point of disagreement :-)


    No, I'm not suggesting that anyone can make up anything and post it. I'm suggesting that people should be allowed to reference valid studies that have been done by recognized groups.

    If the FDA doesn't want to review all the studies being done, they might just require (as they do on some products) a disclaimer -- "This information not reviewed by the FDA." Denying access to information is not the same as protecting people. It's just denying access to information.

    If the FDA wanted to do something useful, they could have a place on their website that listed studies they had reviewed (though this would be extremely rare among nutritional research, as the FDA pretty much dismisses out of hand anything that hasn't been developed by a drug company). They might also list organizations they consider trustworthy. But if they want to help, they need to guide consumers to good information, rather than deny access to all information.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #17 - November 9th, 2011, 2:53 pm
    Post #17 - November 9th, 2011, 2:53 pm Post #17 - November 9th, 2011, 2:53 pm
    JoelF wrote:Oh, and one more thing: FDA isn't saying Walnuts are Drugs, FDA is saying that Diamond's claiming they are, and they need to stop or prove it before marketing them as such.


    That would still be wrong. First, the assertion was that walnuts have health benefits. A vast number of foods have health benefits. In fact, the whole reason anyone (including the government) cares what you eat is because some foods have greater health benefits than others. That is NOT the same as saying it's a drug.

    Second, Diamond wasn't making the claims about health benefits -- reliable, highly regarded research universities and laboratories were sharing the results of their research, and Diamond simply shared that information. They did not make any claims. They were just saying, "Research shows this stuff is good for you."
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #18 - November 9th, 2011, 3:10 pm
    Post #18 - November 9th, 2011, 3:10 pm Post #18 - November 9th, 2011, 3:10 pm
    Cynthia wrote:
    JoelF wrote:Oh, and one more thing: FDA isn't saying Walnuts are Drugs, FDA is saying that Diamond's claiming they are, and they need to stop or prove it before marketing them as such.


    That would still be wrong. First, the assertion was that walnuts have health benefits. A vast number of foods have health benefits. In fact, the whole reason anyone (including the government) cares what you eat is because some foods have greater health benefits than others. That is NOT the same as saying it's a drug.

    Second, Diamond wasn't making the claims about health benefits -- reliable, highly regarded research universities and laboratories were sharing the results of their research, and Diamond simply shared that information. They did not make any claims. They were just saying, "Research shows this stuff is good for you."


    I think I missed something, is there a quote on exactly what the walnut marketers said? I think they can say "Research shows this stuff is good for you". I think they can't say "Walnuts cure cancer, read the studies".
    Leek

    SAVING ONE DOG may not change the world,
    but it CHANGES THE WORLD for that one dog.
    American Brittany Rescue always needs foster homes. Please think about helping that one dog. http://www.americanbrittanyrescue.org
  • Post #19 - November 9th, 2011, 3:38 pm
    Post #19 - November 9th, 2011, 3:38 pm Post #19 - November 9th, 2011, 3:38 pm
    leek wrote:I think I missed something, is there a quote on exactly what the walnut marketers said? I think they can say "Research shows this stuff is good for you". I think they can't say "Walnuts cure cancer, read the studies".


    The statements have been removed, so an exact quote is not now possible, but the site simply quoted research that walnuts lower cholesterol and reduce risk of heart disease. It didn't claim to end heart disease (or cure cancer) and didn't recommend going off your meds. It just said that research shows that walnuts are good for you. And there are mountains of evidence that walnuts are, in fact, good for you -- even better for you than some other nuts (though pretty much all nuts offer some health benefits).

    The FDA has a pretty solid track record of trying to discourage anyone from choosing nutrition, vitamins, and alternative approaches to healing. They seem to have lost their way, as far as what their real goals are. It's more about protecting their power than about protecting our health.

    (I just checked the Diamond site, and at present, all that is left is that they have "health benefits" including protein and vitamins. Nothing is left about the research showing that they reduce cholesterol or are reduce heart risk. Not even "good fats." So really, no information at all.)
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #20 - November 9th, 2011, 3:52 pm
    Post #20 - November 9th, 2011, 3:52 pm Post #20 - November 9th, 2011, 3:52 pm
    Cynthia, I presume you got your information from The New American articleon this topic. They've completely misrepresented the situation. I leave it to Marion Nestle to clean up:

    Q. I’d love to hear your take on the recent walnut flap [accusations that the FDA now considers walnuts to be drugs]. I suspect walnuts got caught with such offenders as Pom, Froot Loops, and Juicy-Juice, but I’d love to find out what the FDA actually said about this. For some odd reason I don’t believe the article is presenting the whole truth.

    A. This is a health claims issue. The FDA is not saying walnuts are drugs. It is saying that Diamond Walnut is claiming walnuts as drugs on package labels. How so?

    The labels say the omega-3 fatty acids in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers (e.g. breast cancer); inhibit tumor growth; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses. These are disease claims for which the FDA requires scientific substantiation.

    The company’s petition did not provide that substantiation so the FDA issued a warning letter. In general, you should be skeptical any time you see a nutritional factor advertised for its ability to prevent or treat such a broad range of problems.


    You can read the warning letter here and it should be very clear what the issues are.
  • Post #21 - November 9th, 2011, 4:00 pm
    Post #21 - November 9th, 2011, 4:00 pm Post #21 - November 9th, 2011, 4:00 pm
    Cynthia wrote:
    The statements have been removed, so an exact quote is not now possible, but the site simply quoted research that walnuts lower cholesterol and reduce risk of heart disease. It didn't claim to end heart disease (or cure cancer) and didn't recommend going off your meds.


    The Internet, Where Nothing Ever Goes Away wrote:According to New America the benefits claimed by Diamond Foods and listed on the company's website include, "the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer."
    Steve Z.

    “Only the pure in heart can make a good soup.”
    ― Ludwig van Beethoven
  • Post #22 - November 9th, 2011, 4:13 pm
    Post #22 - November 9th, 2011, 4:13 pm Post #22 - November 9th, 2011, 4:13 pm
    Darren72 wrote:Cynthia, I presume you got your information from The New American articleon this topic. They've completely misrepresented the situation. I leave it to Marion Nestle to clean up:

    Q. I’d love to hear your take on the recent walnut flap [accusations that the FDA now considers walnuts to be drugs]. I suspect walnuts got caught with such offenders as Pom, Froot Loops, and Juicy-Juice, but I’d love to find out what the FDA actually said about this. For some odd reason I don’t believe the article is presenting the whole truth.

    A. This is a health claims issue. The FDA is not saying walnuts are drugs. It is saying that Diamond Walnut is claiming walnuts as drugs on package labels. How so?

    The labels say the omega-3 fatty acids in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers (e.g. breast cancer); inhibit tumor growth; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses. These are disease claims for which the FDA requires scientific substantiation.

    The company’s petition did not provide that substantiation so the FDA issued a warning letter. In general, you should be skeptical any time you see a nutritional factor advertised for its ability to prevent or treat such a broad range of problems.


    You can read the warning letter here and it should be very clear what the issues are.


    Actually, no, I didn't read an article in The New American -- I got the info from three separate sources, one political and two nutritional in focus.

    Also, Nestle is wrong about its being on the label -- even the FDA letter (linked from the Nestle comment) says that the comments were made on the website -- it does not mention labels at all.

    The FDA letter states that Diamond includes the following on its website: "Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses."

    So it's exactly what I've said above. They are saying "Studies show that this stuff might be good for you." There are peer-reviewed studies available for all these applications of Omega-3 fatty acids. It was on the website, NOT on the label. And it doesn't say it will cure anything, just that it MAY help protect against these things.

    Plus, anyone who has been paying attention at all to nutritional research in the last decade or so will know that Omega 3 fatty acids are almost daily being shown to have all the benefits mentioned. That's why so many fish are getting over-fished now, as we rush off to pack in the Omega 3s.

    So again, I think saying "studies show that this might help" is perfectly within reasonable sharing of information.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #23 - November 9th, 2011, 4:15 pm
    Post #23 - November 9th, 2011, 4:15 pm Post #23 - November 9th, 2011, 4:15 pm
    stevez wrote:
    The Internet, Where Nothing Ever Goes Away wrote:According to New America the benefits claimed by Diamond Foods and listed on the company's website include, "the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer."


    As noted above, even the FDA letter states that the site said "Research indicates" and that it "may help." So again, it does not say it will change things. Even the FDA acknowledges that the website was quoting research.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #24 - November 9th, 2011, 4:21 pm
    Post #24 - November 9th, 2011, 4:21 pm Post #24 - November 9th, 2011, 4:21 pm
    JoelF wrote:Yes, but a newspaper doesn't have the potential for effects that can hospitalize you.

    Dmnkly and others have it straight: FDA must specifically approve claims. If scientific studies are published, but the results are not statistically conclusive, or not well controlled, or have unscrupulous investigators, they're not good enough. Two studies, even one, can be enough if the claims are solid and the health benefit large.


    So two good studies would be okay with you, but the more than 35 peer-reviewed studies done on walnuts somehow don't qualify?

    As for things that have potential effects that can hospitalize you, FDA-approved drugs don't have a really good track record. I don't think too many folks are dying from walnuts, however.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #25 - November 9th, 2011, 4:56 pm
    Post #25 - November 9th, 2011, 4:56 pm Post #25 - November 9th, 2011, 4:56 pm
    Sorry to sidetrack the thread, but I saw on TV that walnuts are from the planet Twilo. Eat too many and you lose your imagination (and your thumbs). :lol:

    Steve Z.

    “Only the pure in heart can make a good soup.”
    ― Ludwig van Beethoven
  • Post #26 - November 9th, 2011, 5:34 pm
    Post #26 - November 9th, 2011, 5:34 pm Post #26 - November 9th, 2011, 5:34 pm
    I remember that episode. Thanks for the trip down memory lane, stevez.

    So clearly, you can never be too careful with walnuts. ;-)
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #27 - November 9th, 2011, 5:34 pm
    Post #27 - November 9th, 2011, 5:34 pm Post #27 - November 9th, 2011, 5:34 pm
    Cynthia wrote:As for things that have potential effects that can hospitalize you, FDA-approved drugs don't have a really good track record. I don't think too many folks are dying from walnuts, however.


    I think we've just thrown the last shred of reasonable, intelligent thought out the window.
    Cynthia wrote:
    stevez wrote:
    The Internet, Where Nothing Ever Goes Away wrote:According to New America the benefits claimed by Diamond Foods and listed on the company's website include, "the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer."


    As noted above, even the FDA letter states that the site said "Research indicates" and that it "may help." So again, it does not say it will change things. Even the FDA acknowledges that the website was quoting research.


    Yes, and if you read the FDA letter carefully you'd see that it addresses the adequacy of this research: "There is not sufficient evidence to identify a biologically active substance in walnuts that reduces the risk of CHD."

    Cynthia wrote:Also, Nestle is wrong about its being on the label -- even the FDA letter (linked from the Nestle comment) says that the comments were made on the website -- it does not mention labels at all.


    Well, except for the bottom half of the FDA letter, under the heading "Product Label".

    Cynthia wrote:And it doesn't say it will cure anything, just that it MAY help protect against these things.


    You'd be an excellent representative of the snake oil industry. I think the problem here is that you simply don't understand the purpose of product labeling laws.
  • Post #28 - November 9th, 2011, 5:44 pm
    Post #28 - November 9th, 2011, 5:44 pm Post #28 - November 9th, 2011, 5:44 pm
    Darren72 wrote:
    Cynthia wrote:As for things that have potential effects that can hospitalize you, FDA-approved drugs don't have a really good track record. I don't think too many folks are dying from walnuts, however.


    I think we've just thrown the last shred of reasonable, intelligent thought out the window.

    Cynthia wrote:And it doesn't say it will cure anything, just that it MAY help protect against these things.


    You'd be an excellent representative of the snake oil industry. I think the problem here is that you simply don't understand the purpose of product labeling laws.


    Actually, I think the problem is that I have too much background knowledge about FDA abuses and failures, and I'm writing from years of reading and issues, not just from this one issue. But since I don't have the time, and I don't think anyone really wants this to turn into a dissertation, I'll just leave it where it stands. I think the FDA is wrong in this instance, but perhaps I'm a bit more Libertarian in my views than you are.

    However, to point out that FDA-approved drugs have put a lot more folks in the hospital than any nutritional substances have, whatever the claims either has made, is hardly a departure from reason. They are not very good at protecting us. Their greatest accomplishment is that they have made both the drug companies AND the alternative medicine community hate them.
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com
  • Post #29 - November 9th, 2011, 5:46 pm
    Post #29 - November 9th, 2011, 5:46 pm Post #29 - November 9th, 2011, 5:46 pm
    NUTS! :mrgreen:
  • Post #30 - November 9th, 2011, 7:28 pm
    Post #30 - November 9th, 2011, 7:28 pm Post #30 - November 9th, 2011, 7:28 pm
    On a more upbeat note, in June, the FDA temporarily suspended its approval of feeding arsenic to poultry, so at least your Thanksgiving turkey should be safe.

    http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2011 ... mal-feeds/
    "All great change in America begins at the dinner table." Ronald Reagan

    http://midwestmaize.wordpress.com

Contact

About

Team

Advertize

Close

Chat

Articles

Guide

Events

more