Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Bavarian)   The FDA has announced that walnuts are drugs. Read that again if you need to   (thenewamerican.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, FDA, scientific data, U.S. National Library of Medicine, chronic illnesses, population controls, environmental mitigation, Frito-Lay, windfall profits  
•       •       •

24877 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2011 at 7:42 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-25 05:41:42 PM  
ok, so - I have a deal for the FDA. lets put walnuts on the DEA Schedule I list, and then we'll take cannabis OFF that list and then nobody loses anything. and it'll make JUST as much sense as the rest of the war on drugs bullshiat and nobody will notice the difference.

so what do ya say there FDA? you down with it?
 
2011-07-25 05:59:19 PM  
Well not exactly.
They basically want one company, that sells walnuts, to stop advertising that they can prevent or cure heart disease, stroke, depression and cancer.
But yeah they're basically saying that if they're advertised and sold to treat these conditions, they have to be classified as drugs, which is weird.
 
2011-07-25 06:01:41 PM  
But I'm sure we'll see this story make the rounds with a preceding

FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: RE: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: RE: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Can you believe this???
 
2011-07-25 06:03:35 PM  
I'm allergic to walnuts.

imokaywiththis.jpg
 
2011-07-25 06:30:34 PM  
What the letter actually says is here.

"The statement suggests that the evidence supporting a relationship between walnuts and coronary heart disease is related to the omega-3 fatty acid content of walnuts. There is not sufficient evidence to identify a biologically active substance in walnuts that reduces the risk of CHD. Therefore, the above statement is an unauthorized health claim."

Assuming the FDA is correct on that second sentence (IANAMD), that's well within their scope as an agency. It's also worth noting that this is essentially a warning from the FDA for these guys to rewrite that statement so it's more accurate.

That said, I'd rather they expend their energy going after the gajillion copper bracelets, energy crystals, random plant extracts, and other hocus-pocus which claim to cure cancer, stop the aging process, etc. Walnut dude should be low on the list.
 
2011-07-25 06:32:40 PM  
I agree with everybody except AdolfOliverPanties.

/ Punny Handle, Bro.
 
2011-07-25 06:36:34 PM  
So, the FDA is acknowledging that walnuts work as advertised?
 
2011-07-25 06:36:48 PM  
Your blog sucks. And if any company that marketed any product was to directly advertise it as being a cure or treatment for any disease, the same FDA banhammer would fall on them.

The FDA is one of the real forces for good in the US Government. This is probably why the far right and far left dislike them so.

You wanna biatch at a truly evil government department? Try the other one with "Drug" in its name.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-07-25 06:46:56 PM  
While the FDA may be legally correct, the lawyers who make this happen should be lined up against the same wall as children's cereal box designers.

The FDA should have the burden of proving that the claims are false.
 
2011-07-25 06:47:42 PM  
No, you stupid submitter. They're saying that if Diamond intends to make claims about what their walnuts can cure or treat like they're drugs, then the FDA is going to regulate them like they're drugs.
 
2011-07-25 06:50:25 PM  

ZAZ: While the FDA may be legally correct, the lawyers who make this happen should be lined up against the same wall as children's cereal box designers.

The FDA should have the burden of proving that the claims are false.


No, the lawyers did their jobs (and did so in a pretty clever way). Diamond essentially admitted that their walnuts have positive medical benefits. If the FDA takes the admissions to be true, then Diamond is essentially marketing their walnuts as drugs, and thus the FDA can regulate them as such.

If Diamond retracts the label, then the FDA can't regulate them as drugs anymore. The whole point is to get Diamond to retract the label.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-07-25 07:01:41 PM  
the lawyers did their jobs (and did so in a pretty clever way)

I'm OK with firing people who were doing their jobs. If the FDA can find time to threaten people with making health claims about walnuts it has too much time and too many lawyers on its hands. I am assuming for the sake of argument that the lawyers were clearly correct in applying well established precedent.
 
2011-07-25 07:22:04 PM  

ZAZ: the lawyers did their jobs (and did so in a pretty clever way)

I'm OK with firing people who were doing their jobs. If the FDA can find time to threaten people with making health claims about walnuts it has too much time and too many lawyers on its hands. I am assuming for the sake of argument that the lawyers were clearly correct in applying well established precedent.


Here's a question, where does it stop? Can natural food producers claim that their food can stop diabetes? Can vitamin makers make claims about how their product can cure heart disease or cancer?

The rule is there for a reason - don't make medical claims about your food product. Yes, you can say its healthy. But when you cross the bridge of making claims about your food that misleads consumers about what they think your food can do, then you should be regulated.
 
2011-07-25 07:43:59 PM  
Actually, subby, you may want to read that again.
 
2011-07-25 07:44:07 PM  
That's nuts.
 
2011-07-25 07:46:21 PM  
Of course the headline is misleading.

Walnut processor/seller packages walnuts with specific, insufficiently supported claims of positive health effects that crosses the line where the FDA starts to care.
 
2011-07-25 07:47:42 PM  
I never imagined I'd see walnut wharrgarbl.
 
2011-07-25 07:48:30 PM  
Your blog, it sucks.

/Chris Walken voice
 
2011-07-25 07:48:59 PM  
Holy shiat I just bought some. Do I snort, smoke, or inject them? They are meant for the brownies so I suppose that's good too.
 
2011-07-25 07:49:54 PM  
I dunno about walnuts, but pistachios should be classified as a drug - they're horribly addicting. Especially salted.
 
2011-07-25 07:50:02 PM  
In other news, Amy Winehouse died from shooting up ground walnuts.
 
2011-07-25 07:50:05 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: They are meant for the brownies so I suppose that's good too.


Aw shiat, I'm gettin' high tonight!
 
2011-07-25 07:50:05 PM  

Fubegra: I never imagined I'd see walnut wharrgarbl.


There's anti-government sentiment for every government institution - even the most innocuous ones. Some people think that the FDA regulating labels is an intrusion into the free-market, even though we tried the free-market approach before and all we got from that was meats and foods that were mislabeled at best, downright deadly and toxic at worst.
 
2011-07-25 07:50:24 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Holy shiat I just bought some. Do I snort, smoke, or inject them? They are meant for the brownies so I suppose that's good too.


They're uh.. they're actually suppositories.
 
2011-07-25 07:50:49 PM  
Just do like 5 Hour engery dose.

"This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA."
 
2011-07-25 07:51:11 PM  
Lame comment not worthy of a vote
 
2011-07-25 07:51:57 PM  

Teen Wolf Blitzer: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Holy shiat I just bought some. Do I snort, smoke, or inject them? They are meant for the brownies so I suppose that's good too.

They're uh.. they're actually suppositories.


Good News!
 
2011-07-25 07:51:58 PM  
I don't do drugs.

I am just sitting here drinking coffee and will have a few beers later.

Seriously. How about doing your fricking job and making sure pharamcutical drugs are screened well.

Oxy (lab produced heroine) is semi-legal, but marijuana is illegal.

FDA: STFU, and please tighten your focus.
 
2011-07-25 07:52:10 PM  

olddinosaur: In other news, Amy Winehouse died from shooting up ground walnuts.


If there was one thing she was used to digesting it was nuts
 
2011-07-25 07:52:23 PM  

Weaver95: ok, so - I have a deal for the FDA. lets put walnuts on the DEA Schedule I list, and then we'll take cannabis OFF that list and then nobody loses anything. and it'll make JUST as much sense as the rest of the war on drugs bullshiat and nobody will notice the difference.

so what do ya say there FDA? you down with it?


YOU WIN THE THREAD.
 
2011-07-25 07:52:42 PM  
"Of course, if the Constitution were being followed as intended, none of this would be necessary. The FDA would not exist; but if it did, as a creation of Congress it would have no power to censor any speech whatsoever. If companies are making false claims about their products, the market will quickly punish them for it, and genuine fraud can be handled through the courts. In the absence of a government agency supposedly guaranteeing the safety of their food and drugs and the truthfulness of producers' claims, consumers would become more discerning, as indeed they already are becoming despite the FDA's attempts to prevent the dissemination of scientific research."

That's insane. Literally insane. Barking mad. Libertarian, even.

But I like it: I have some drain cleaner that will make you smarter. Send me $100.

By the time the market catches up with me in order to mete out some that bootstrappy punishment, I'll be on a beach in Sardinia. Under the alias John Galt.
 
2011-07-25 07:53:36 PM  
You guys are a bunch of 'tards. Let's take a look at what the company was actually saying:

"the company stated that 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 far as I'm concerned, that's a reasonable claim to make. As long as they can cite medical studies that demonstrate their claim, I don't see why the FDA has a big walnut up their ass.
 
2011-07-25 07:54:07 PM  

Enemabag Jones: I don't do drugs.

I am just sitting here drinking coffee and will have a few beers later.

Seriously. How about doing your fricking job and making sure pharamcutical drugs are screened well.

Oxy (lab produced heroine) is semi-legal, but marijuana is illegal.

FDA: STFU, and please tighten your focus.


So they should stop evaluating companies claims about the health benefits of their products? Would you like some snake oil?
 
2011-07-25 07:54:09 PM  
Chimp NInja - That said, I'd rather they expend their energy going after the gajillion copper bracelets, energy crystals, random plant extracts, and other hocus-pocus which claim to cure cancer, stop the aging process, etc

Other than potentially the "random plant extracts" the rest of those items would be well outside the jurisdiction of the FDA, since they are not intended for internal consumption. The FTC (Fed Trade Commission) is the one who is tasked with dealing with most of that burden (tracking down false claims about products.)
 
2011-07-25 07:54:11 PM  
Good. Cause I'm just about outta banana peels.
 
2011-07-25 07:54:34 PM  

Weaver95: ok, so - I have a deal for the FDA. lets put walnuts on the DEA Schedule I list, and then we'll take cannabis OFF that list and then nobody loses anything. and it'll make JUST as much sense as the rest of the war on drugs bullshiat and nobody will notice the difference.

so what do ya say there FDA? you down with it?


Came here to say this... and we are done. Thanks Weaver95. Well put.
 
2011-07-25 07:54:35 PM  
Grind that shiat up with some banana peels and watch space shuttle just got re-commissioned in your living room.
 
2011-07-25 07:54:59 PM  
I laugh at all those WalNuts.

/ http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/
 
2011-07-25 07:55:57 PM  
First they came for the howling wolf shirt that could get me laid, and cure aids.

Now this!
 
2011-07-25 07:56:10 PM  

A Famous Mortimer Production: Good. Cause I'm just about outta banana peels.


I have become a failure. That's it. I'm gonna smoke this whole bunch, goodbye cruel world.
 
2011-07-25 07:56:57 PM  
Then I am the worst drug dealer, because I just give those things away.
 
2011-07-25 07:57:13 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: They basically want one company, that sells walnuts, to stop advertising that they can prevent or cure heart disease, stroke, depression and cancer.


They (DEA) did the same thing a few years ago with California cherries, companies were advertising the beneficial effects of the anti-oxidants in their cherries, the DEA said 'you can't advertise that or we'll label cherries a drug and fine you heavily.'

/f*ck the dea
//it's like people think the founding fathers had no idea what hemp, weed, cannabis was
 
2011-07-25 07:57:41 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Your blog sucks. And if any company that marketed any product was to directly advertise it as being a cure or treatment for any disease, the same FDA banhammer would fall on them.

The FDA is one of the real forces for good in the US Government. This is probably why the far right and far left dislike them so.

You wanna biatch at a truly evil government department? Try the other one with "Drug" in its name.


It's so good that new treatments and procedures are often delayed for years in the United States while passing approval process in the EU.

This is true from sunscreen to spinal disk replacement.
 
2011-07-25 07:58:25 PM  
Me: Buy my pocket lint, it cures cancer, depression, and congestive heart failure.

FDA: Absent sufficient evidence for your claims, you can't market your pocket lint as a cure for these diseases. If you keep doing so, we have to classify the product as a drug.

Me: The stupid FDA thinks pocket lint is a drug! Government is out of control. Vote with your pocket book, show you detest gummint interference with free enterprise. Buy my pocket lint.
 
2011-07-25 07:59:27 PM  

dahmers love zombie: The FDA is one of the real forces for good in the US Government. This is probably why the far right and far left dislike them so.


Really? Under the Bush administration the FDA was reduced to a pathetic joke that simply rubber stamped every big pharma request for drug approval. I don't see that things have really changed that much.
 
2011-07-25 07:59:54 PM  
But I, uh... Huh.
 
2011-07-25 07:59:58 PM  
Well now, if we can be healthier just by consuming healthier foods, how will pharmaceutical companies make obscene amounts of money?
 
2011-07-25 08:00:38 PM  
It was sounding pretty good right up till the last paragraph, when it plunged into nutty (ha!) libertarian whargarbl.

Yeah, subby, everything gubmint does is illegal and bad. That's why you get to post this on the Internet without getting spanked.
 
2011-07-25 08:01:35 PM  

animal color: "Of course, if the Constitution were being followed as intended, none of this would be necessary. The FDA would not exist; but if it did, as a creation of Congress it would have no power to censor any speech whatsoever. If companies are making false claims about their products, the market will quickly punish them for it, and genuine fraud can be handled through the courts. In the absence of a government agency supposedly guaranteeing the safety of their food and drugs and the truthfulness of producers' claims, consumers would become more discerning, as indeed they already are becoming despite the FDA's attempts to prevent the dissemination of scientific research."

That's insane. Literally insane. Barking mad. Libertarian, even.

But I like it: I have some drain cleaner that will make you smarter. Send me $100.

By the time the market catches up with me in order to mete out some that bootstrappy punishment, I'll be on a beach in Sardinia. Under the alias John Galt.


So you have never heard of product liability? Honestly? Your situation is so laughable that I'm going to laugh at you instead.
 
2011-07-25 08:01:43 PM  

chimp_ninja: What the letter actually says is here.

"The statement suggests that the evidence supporting a relationship between walnuts and coronary heart disease is related to the omega-3 fatty acid content of walnuts. There is not sufficient evidence to identify a biologically active substance in walnuts that reduces the risk of CHD. Therefore, the above statement is an unauthorized health claim."

Assuming the FDA is correct on that second sentence (IANAMD), that's well within their scope as an agency. It's also worth noting that this is essentially a warning from the FDA for these guys to rewrite that statement so it's more accurate.

That said, I'd rather they expend their energy going after the gajillion copper bracelets, energy crystals, random plant extracts, and other hocus-pocus which claim to cure cancer, stop the aging process, etc. Walnut dude should be low on the list.


Those aren't drugs. They're dietary supplements, which are completely different things. And you'll notice they never say they prevent or cure disease - they support CV health, or make other more vague statements like that.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report