Did You Have Your Bowl of Cholesterol Drugs This Morning?
By Susie Madrak Wednesday May 13, 2009 1:00pmI guess we have to start getting prescriptions for this stuff, huh?
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Popular US breakfast cereal Cheerios is a drug, at least if the claims made on the label by its manufacturer General Mills are anything to go by, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said.
"Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug," the FDA said in a letter to General Mills which was posted on the federal agency's website Tuesday.
Cheerios labels claim that eating the cereal can help lower bad cholesterol, a risk factor for coronary heart disease, by four percent in six weeks.
Citing a clinical study, the product labels also claim that eating two servings a day of Cheerios helps to reduce bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, the FDA letter says.
Those claims indicate that Cheerios -- said by General Mills to be the best-selling cereal in the United States -- is intended to be used to lower cholesterol and prevent, lessen or treat the disease hypercholesterolemia, and to treat and prevent coronary heart disease.
"Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug," the FDA concluded in its letter.
Not only that, but Cheerios is a new drug because it has not been "recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease," the FDA said.
That means General Mills may not legally market Cheerios unless it applies for approval as a new drug or changes the way it labels the small, doughnut-shaped cereal, the FDA said.
General Mills defended the claims on Cheerios packaging, saying in a statement that Cheerios' soluble fiber heart health claim has been FDA-approved for 12 years, and that its "lower your cholesterol four percent in six weeks" message has been featured on the box for more than two years.
Login or Register to post comments.
Get Ted Stevens off the hook and go after Cheerios?
instead of pointless partisan junk like who tortured who and when and whether or not the previous administration committed crimes against humanity and all that sort of silliness.
Anyway, we have nothing to be Cheery about so they should really be relabeling them anyway.
I suggest "Weepios" and make them look like little elephants.
Or make them look like little waterboards and call them "Freedom Planks of Oats".
...is on Obama?
about government being the problem...
I guess I better go get soemthing for my restless leg syndrome and horde them Cheerios.
I don't eat these little morsels, but I will defend to the death their right to float around in a bowl of milk.
Stop eating meat and dairy and you will not have a cholesterol problem.
I'm not preaching, but it is a big part of the reason so many are taking cholesterol lowering drugs. These drugs are another "maintenance" drug that are designed to keep you taking them the rest of your lives.
I could eat nothing but Cheerios without milk and I would still have high cholesterol issues. It is a hereditary trait passed down from my ancestors. Should I get some gene therapy to correct this so I do not pass it down to my kids?
I thought only Republicans believed in bull crap science.
Take your vegan nonsense elsewhere. Humans are omnivores.
Also, scientific studies have shown that low-fat milk can help some people lose weight. What do you have to say about that?
I have hypothyroidism and hereditary arterial disease - my cholesterol levels don't depend on my diet.
*
Notice I didn't say all people, I said so many.
What the hell did people with genetically high cholesterol do before vytorin? Before cholesterol tests?
Eat whole foods and you'll be fine. If you can't afford a lifetime supply of cholesterol drugs, that's about all you have is the diet approach.
that use of statins in secondary prevention saves lives.
only men between the ages of 35 to 65 and have had one heart attack already are the only ones to show some very minor benefit. Those males younger or older get zip.
Women at any age derive no benefit from statins yet end up with many of the really serious side effects including muscle loss and memory loss.
oh damn so I could have bought a box of Cocoa Puffs instead of my customary Cheerios? I also have a genetic disposition towards high cholesterol but am doing every thing I can not to help it up with my diet. Besides the clinic gives me trouble with refilling my birth control because of my cholesterol - thank fsm I quit smoking and my blood pressure is ridiculously low or I would be pill-less.
Losing muscle doesn't sound like a positive therapy for someone with a weakened heart-muscle.
You'd think, huh? My father was on three different statins variously for fifteen years. One day, out of the blue, he asks me to look up rhamdomyolosis, the latinate word for muscle loss. It turns out that he was experiencing some shooting leg pains and the doctor finally saw fit to tell him why. He was also having difficulty keeping weight on as his body started to waste away.
Not only do statins create muscle loss, they also use up Co-enzyme Q10, a very necessary substance for heart regulation!
He was told by the doctor to go out and buy CoQ10. When he finally started to take it, the leg pains stopped--so did the heart palpitations he hadn't bothered to admit to me he was having until they disappeared with the CoQ10.
He never understood that by stopping the statins, he would also have stopped the muscle loss. He was well over 65-he was in his eighties. I think his doctor was completely irresponsible putting him on statins in the first place.
Sorry for your _EXCEPTION_.
But don't call what works statistically for the majority "bull crap science."
Kid, there are _always_ a few anomalous data points on any sample. My college Freshman physic lab prof explained that to me.
High cholesterol rates are one of the attendant symptoms of Hypothyroidism - it doesn't matter how intelligent your diet is.
*
"when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol"
Duh. I assume I am getting much the same effect by substituting Shredded Wheat with unsweetened almond soy and skipping the scrapple and eggs for breakfast.
Changed my diet around 30 in response to some health issues, and nearly 30 years ago, and it was one of the smartest things I did. Not really rocket science to read up a little and learn to recognize nutrition from crap. Read labels for a start, and eat lower on the corporate chain by avoiding a lot of prepackaged junk. Lordy knows if they've screwed around with it enough, they've found some way to make it kill you slowly.
If you get hooked on Cheerios, next you are blowing your paycheck on LifeSavers, then you need to pound doughnuts just to get through the day, finally, you're in a back alley trying to score a bagel.
Besides, the Cheerios hole causes gas.
;o}
Many a poor person has died trying to get a bagel in a back alley
with unsterile coathangers.
you should see what they did to the poor schmo that tried to score a bagel with cream cheese.
...how people busted scoring said bagels face stiff penalties and jail time, while the scone people skate with little more than slaps on the wrist.
It sounds to me that the drug manufacturers that sell cholesterol lowering drugs are losing money and they're trying to take out their competition.
"What, a natural way to lower cholesterol? We can't have that."
so the FDA wants to ban one of the most effective ways to slow pathological glycation reactions in our aging bodies, to make way for drug-maker profits.
This is too stupid for words.
I eat cheerios and had three stents put in my heart two months ago though.
*
Don't fall for those teeth whitner blog ads. There's a three strikes rule.
Sad you lost so much health. I hope you can get your health under your own control.
Hazelnuts and beans have cholesterol lowering effects that compete with dangerous drugs.
VytoriOs, anyone?
...for this issue, are they going after the "grow a bigger penis" drugs next?
I'm SURE those things do what they say they do, right?
leaks out.
If you can stack the cheerios on your penis, you might consult your surgeon.
only you could contemplate one fitting through the little holes.
Remember the stacking donuts toy you had as a kid?
Don't be an alarmist. A physician would only need to be consulted if they remained stacked for greater than 5 hours.
What do you think penis enlargement surgery is about? They take the cholesterol from one part of your body and inject it into your dick. That way, it gets nice and fat, and you can convince yourself it's actually bigger, when in fact it's just thicker.
"that certain part of a male's body," which could be just about anything, right??
The FDA is supposed to protect us from faulty claims and other things that poison us.
Under the Bush administration, the FDA would have attached its lips to General Mills' fat behind.
At least under the Obama administration they are doing their job - protecting consumers from outrageous claims from corporations.
What if I sold lettuce and told people that eating more salads can help them lose weight?
Or what if I said that it could also help lower cholesterol?
Just because a food has certain health benefits, doesn't make the food a drug.
If Kellogg's sues, they will win.
...and slapped it on the product, then yes, you'd be claiming the lettuce had drug-like properties. That's why lettuce growers DON'T DO THAT.
There has to be a limit on this kind of thing, or else "food" manufacturers will go nuts plastering all sorts of specious claims on their products. You gotta remember - advertising isn't about truth. It's about luring customers to a product. That's WHY we need organization like the FDA, to make sure claims like that don't get out of hand.
Instead, they take issue with this life-saving information reaching people. The FDA takes our money to live well and kill us -- by starving us of information, and threatening us with imprisonment.
Thank you. I was wondering when someone would point this out. Hopefully this will be the first in a long line of calling BS on all kinds of mislabeling and abuse that has been allowed to take place with the deregulation of everything in a multitude of industries.
Wouldn't it be something if Obama actually put regulatory agencies back into the business of, well,regulating, rather than using them to cover up and apoligize for the industries they are intended to oversee. Or for using one's position in such an agency as a stepping stone to landing a cushy job with them after your time as a "regulator" was up for taking good care of them?
I was wondering if someone would point this out. This just seems prudent to monitor this kind of labeling as, like many things, it can be abused.
lef.org
"On October 17, 2005, the FDA banned information about cherries’ health benefits from appearing on websites.16,17 The FDA sent warning letters to 29 companies that market cherry products. In these letters, the FDA ordered the companies to stop publicizing scientific data about cherries.18 According to the FDA, when cherry companies disseminate this information, the cherries become unapproved drugs subject to seizure. The FDA warns that if those involved in cherry trafficking continue to inform consumers about these scientific studies, criminal prosecutions will ensue.17"
And they have the lowest incident rate of disease in any population in the world. The amount of misinformation in the public about nutrition is startling.
The links between cholesterol and fat intake are tenuous at best. Many studies involve feeding rabbits (herbavores) excessive animal fats and looking at the results.
But there is a wealth of information showing that high-carb diets promotes heart disease reliably.
of gene-pool modifications to arrive at that point.
A large portion of heart-attack victims have normal cholesterol. That's why I don't worry too terribly much about my borderline-high (hereditary) cholesterol level (205-213). I'm a vegetarian and have hypothyroidism (medicated).
for a positive genetic modification to show up, and then, many more generations to spread itself through a population.
"It takes about ten thousand years for a positive genetic modification to show up, and then, many more generations to spread itself through a population."
Niles Elderedge and Stephen Gould have successfully challenged the long held view that evolution proceeds gradually as do both Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" and E.O. Wilson in his work "Sociobiology".
Peter and Rosemary Grant studies of finch populations in the Galapagos Islands clearly demonstrate that natural selection causes evolutionary changes in real time rather than over the course of thousands of years as Darwin believed.
Congolese tiger fish, whales and even mice have all demonstrated remarkable positive genetic modifications in a few mere generations. Survival knows no timetable and nature doesn't wear a watch.
nope.
N-o-p-e is spelled d-o-p-e.
Beginning with the 1953 discovery of DNA by Francis Crick and James Watson and the final sequencing of Human DNA genome in 2003 clearly has shown "positive genetic modifications" (whatever the fuck that term means) in humans again over generations not thousands of years.
If you are going to make blanket statements at this site be prepared to show your sources.
As opposed to mutations that when passed on, display debilitating results. Finches breed yearly, so ten generations can show a genetic modification in ten years. A ten generation human genetic change would take 250 years to show up in a number of progeny, and still not make it to the general population for a much, much longer period.
We are not finches.
We're not monkeys, either. Nor are we rabbits, cats, puppies or mice, yet the results of experimentation on those animals is taken as proof of the efficacy (or not) of drugs for human consumption.
By your logic, none of the results of studies on other animals would be of any use in looking at humans. I think there's a scientist of two that would have words about that.
Are you a carbon based life form or a table lamp...
... or did you just sleep though 10th grade Biology?
Neanderthal is not extinct while you're knuckle dragging the planet.
BTW... Save your logic, name your scientists and provide some facts to the assertion that man is immune to evolution.
"assertion that man is immune to evolution" I said no such damn thing. Stop getting emotional and provide my own words in a quote.
I happen to be a Richard Dawkins "fangirl" and your implication that I don't ascribe to evolution was strictly created in your imagination.
In fact I stated that change takes place very, very slowly compared to say, finches. I said that it takes about ten thousand years for human change to manifest itself in a given population.
Most of my facts about the human diet and our adaptation to it comes from high fat, moderate protein, low carbohydrate advocates like Dr Cordain, the Drs Eades, Gary Taubes, and Dr Mary Vernon.
Vernon helped rewrite Atkins' work so that it actually makes sense.
I don't utilize corporate, mainstream diet advice anymore than I listen to corporate mainstream news. Both have been created to make corporations money and have no relationship to human welfare.
that they now have all the attendant diseases.
Why does a meat diet lower cholesterol? Eighty percent of the body's cholesterol is made by the body. What mechanism turns it on? Why... insulin!
What substance turns on insulin... why, glucose! Where does glucose come from... why, from carbohydrate foods, of course!
No carbs, no glucose, no insulin, no new cholesterol made. Ta Da!
You could eat four eggs, with your steak at breakfast, and nothing would happen to your cholesterol level. You could eat only two eggs with your cheese danish, or with just hash browns and toast, and send your cholesterol skyrocketing.
It requires large genetic modifications to eat carbohydrates. The diet that we evolved to eat consisted primarily of nuts and meat(land animals and fish as well as mollusca). In fact, the evidence supports the idea that we haven't adapted to eating the high amount of carbs found in the typical "civilized" diet. 25% of the US population over 18 exhibits some form of insulin resistance. Given the choice between higher cholesterol and Insulin resistance, I take the higher cholesterol any day.
but that doesn't mean you should eat it. I wish I'd known about insulin resistance long ago.
By itself, this is a tempest in a teaspoon.
But what does this tell us about the FDA's current thinking?
There is another product on our shelves, which the FDA could also, quite easily, declare to be a drug. If they did so, they could cripple a billion-dollar industry, and save thousands of lives, and billions in health care costs.
Cigarettes.
Nicotine is unquestionably an addictive drug, and if it were regulated as the drug that it is, the whole industry would be brought to its knees.
Whoa.
http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/2009/05/f...
The FDA's trying to prevent General Mills (GM = cognate with Genetically Modified, too) from advertizing their food product as having drug-like properties.
Cigaret ads don't pretend the product will make you healthier, only sexier...
Not the same thing at all...
Unless you smoke Cheerios...
Nicotine is a poison. But everything is a poison. The dose makes the poison.
And really, just because it's not sold as a drug does not change what it is. And Nicotine is now sold as a drug, in patches, gum, and e smokes. Which makes the majorly active chemical in smokes a drug.
Just because a food is healthy doesn't make it a drug.
This is a weird story. The FDA is basically silent the entire Bush era and now they go after Cheerios...whatever.
P.S. GM and Chrysler may cut 3,000 dealerships as early as THURSDAY a source says. I'll see ya in the bread lines:
http://yellingatthemoon.com/2009/05/13/gm-and...
Bush dead-enders are all over the public bureaucracies - many of them political operatives who were deliberately "burrowed in" to protected civil services jobs over the last two years of the Bush administration so that they can't be easily fired.
Their project is to give the "Obama" government a black eye by making it look as unreasonable as possible.
You are going to see all kinds of stories about "Obama" over-reaching and abusing the power of federal agencies over the public, when it is actually being done by dead-enders embedded in the bureaucracies.
debate the ad guru from Cheerios who thought up their claim.
Dueling bozos.
I'd be ashamed to put out a paper like this. Why don't they go after things that will hurt people?
Drinking lots of water is good for you in all sorts of ways, should water be considered a drug?
It already IS!
Drinking lots of water is thought to be good for you. Big difference. It actually turns out that 8 glasses of water a day is far, far MORE than people actually need, and can put a strain on your elimination system.
everything is technically a fucking drug. Everything we put in our bodies is broken down to its molecular component and all of those molecules interact with systems in the body. How is it the FDA is all over this 'Cheerios' controversy, and not ecoli burgers, salmonella salads and cigarettes?
Morons.
espouse a far-left agenda.
Liberalios!
Pinkos!
Beck began his show tonight with a big bowl of cheerios on his desk. He said he was going to send lots of them to all his five o'clock competitors and hope they clogged their arteries. Beck apparently didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Not that this would be the first time.
Makes you wonder whether several people on the set knew he was going to make an ass of himself but had no intention of preventing it.
And how exactly would that be different from every other night?
He didn't cry?
No he didn't but I about did as I was laughing at his dumb ass.
WOW, you really surprised me ;>)
I thought that would have been the first time.
BradyB: I had Cheerios once, but I am a freaking carnivore, top of the food chain and eat hardly anything but meat. I will on occasion, like when I got back from a tour of duty in the middle-east, eat a one pound bacon sandwich and I have perfect, ok, good, cholesterol. Not sure why, possibly the booze, but could also be the vast amounts of codeine and Acetylsalicylic acid I have been taking for pain for the last hundred years. Both are blood thinners, so they may have something to do with it. Of course everything catches up with you sooner or later, but in the mean time, I am having a Strip Loin later tonight; the wife is having salmon.
The salmon is closer to our original dietary needs than the steak. But either one is better than a baked potato.
Hope that colon cancer's working out for ya!
I bet you have a lot of problems on the can.
that Beck had choked on his breakfast cereal...
Being a Mormon, he can't eat sugary/sweet shit (unless he's gone Jack)
Aside: I did my undergrad at New Mexico, in the same conference as BYU. We usta have a joke about seducing Mormon girls: Tell 'em you got a CASE of TWINKIES in your room...
is a Mormon? Did you mean Moron?
In his case, there's not much difference.
He eats candy during his show often. He's all about M&Ms
eat plenty of sweet stuff. They're not supposed to have coffee/caffeine and are discouraged from eating junk food but some of the most sugary crap I've ever had was prepared by Mormons.
I guess all fresh fruits and vegetables will now have to be sold as drugs because they have things in them that are good for the human body. I'm going to have to get a prescription for bananas?
you can cross over the Mexican border to one of the many banana pharmacias and get them for half price.
Cool! Good to know. Or I can grow bananas in my back yard like I used to. Would that make my yard a "grow yard"?
I wonder what the insurance co-pay will be on this?
No matter; Costco will still have the best price on this product! Also, you can't buy it from Canada.
I eat em because they taste good. I pay no attention to their advertising because it is meaningless, like the "organic" label is. IMHO, Cheerios is still the breakfast of champions........or, is that corn flakes?
Wheaties is the breakfast of champions, I believe.
Martinis are. Didn't you read that Vonnegut book?
Anybody know where I can score some Cheerios?
Dude, I can set you up. Meet me in the canned vegetable aisle at 6:30. That would be at the famous southern grocery store chain the Piggly Wiggly.
they used to put opium in those snake oil remedies if i remember. um, i'll be right back i gotta just run out for a few mins to score some cheerios.
Things like opium eventually showed up in the fake "snake oil" rememdies. The real stuff, while not a panacea, was actually full of certain nutrients and could be beneficial to people. It was the smarmy imitators who turned the term snake oil into a synonym for "useless and possibly dangerous crap".
Coke used to mean something too. How do you think they got their name?
the latest tests show few cockroaches die from heart disease and they eat anything ! go figure!
Oh, by the way, don't let anyone sell you fruit loops and try to convince you they are cheerios in disguise.
you wouldn't eat if you knew the full extent of it.
The FDA seemed to have no problem with weight-loss pills killing people through heart attacks not being classified as drugs...
But I get the generic brand sold by the amazing Trader Joe's. Tastes just as good.
It's about time somebody went after the "food" manufacturers and hit them on their supposed health claims. These corporations fund bogus studies, inflate numbers, come up with misleadingly vague identifiers, use brights flashy packaging and ads, all to lure people into believing that THEIR foodstuff is SO MUCH BETTER than anyone else's. It's hardly surprising to hear that their claims are so specious that their products can actually end up classified as drugs.
Maybe they'll think twice before plastering ridiculous garbage all over their products next time.
to understand that the studies were not being challenged, only the right to free speech about undisputed research.
The FDA is not contending that the claim for Cheerios is false.
They want to abridge free speech that competes with pharmaceutical industry interests.
Same problem for cherry growers telling people about the effectiveness of cherries.
The FDA is anti-American, on at least two levels.
1) They block free speech about proven life-saving facts.
2) They kill Americans (see 1.)
just put one of those asteriks on the bottom of box that state "this statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. Cheerios is not intended to dx, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. But you already knew that, b/c it's a f#cking breakfast cereal!"
To the FDA's satisfaction. See my comment above. Read what General Mills contends, in the post.
I prefer a carb-controlled/restricted diet, rich in animal products for my health and slimness, but the claims are backed by research. Soluble fiber found in oats.
A whole thread on Cheerios and no one mentioned how they make your pee smell funny. What's up with that?
(So does asparagus.)
I'm willing to bet Cherrios are better for you than Twinkies. Where is the outrage?
Overheard during the important FDA Board Room ............ SNAP, CRACKLE & POP!
Yes, the crispy treats were thrilled their note sent to the FDA
brought about immediate action against CHEERIOS.
SNAP said in an interview, he was ready to take on more fiber and grow stronger,
without looking puffy.
CRACKLE discussed his delight the FDA never watched cable ads
and promo shows which offer products designed to make you stronger,
leaner, healthier and more beautiful for only $15.95 + $12.00 in S&H. HA!
Meanwhile, POP dismissed rumors about having a relationship with Wheaties.
Tomorrow the FDA begins hearings on the amount of Vitamin C found
in the color, Orange.
POTUS GW BUSH ate Special K for his breakfast every morning during
his 8 years in the White House.
WHY HASN'T SPECIAL K BEEN REMOVED FROM STORE SHELVES?
Login or Register to post comments.