• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Popular cereal is a drug, US food watchdog says

Kandahar said:
My problem isn't so much with the FDA contesting false claims. My problem is with them requiring huge amounts of testing for promising treatments while people continue to die, and then holding the manufacturers liable anyway. I agree that quack medicine like homeopathy or herbalism should not be allowed to make any medical claims. Heck, I'd go a step further than that, and require them to make a huge label on their products that says "THERE IS OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THIS TREATMENT IS TOTAL BALONEY. FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY."

However, the FDA has no business regulating the actual sale or use of those products. If people want to buy stupid ****, they should be able to. If they want to take their chances with an unproven new treatment because they have a serious disease, they should be able to. The FDA has almost certainly killed far more people than its saved, by denying them treatments that could have helped them because they were unproven.
Click to expand...

I disagree, because it is completely impossible for consumers to make intelligent decisions about powerful medications on their own. Without extensive clinical trials how can drug companies know what the side effects of, say, psychoactive drugs are before releasing them to consumers, to say nothing at all of what consumers would know. Buy at your own risk is simply not a workable system when dealing with drugs that interact in an immensely complex fashion with the way that your body and mind operate. And that's only mentioning risks from drugs - determining their efficacy through the free market is what led to snake oil literally being sold as medicine. Without strong regulations how is a consumer to know the risk, and how are they to know the efficacy beyond what corporations' marketing departments say? Hell, how are doctors supposed to know unless medication is required to undergo rigorous control studies prior to approval. The FDA exists because precisely the system you described does not work. Companies would shove whatever crap they can pick up on the cheap into a bottle and sell it as a panacea, and how are consumers to tell the difference?

It could be like what ISO 9000 or the Better Business Bureau does for corporations. It could be like what US News and World Report does for colleges. An independent body with credibility in the public's eyes.
Click to expand...

I think that private oversight would be much more likely to go the way of finance ratings agencies. The pharmaceutical industry is already to close to the government for the consumer's good, and if they were directly paying the people charged with overseeing them I don't see anything positive coming from that situation.

All drugs could be legal and "use at your own risk," but independent agencies could certify how effective their treatments are, and how much evidence there is for those claims.
Click to expand...

And where would that agency get its money? I see two possibilities. It could be publicly funded, in which case it would be the FDA, or its certifications could be payed for by the companies wishing to get their drugs certified, in which case you end up with the medical equivalent of AAA rated CDS's, which would have as disastrous effects on public health as the econopocalypse did on the economy.

Like you said, the pharmaceutical industry has a huge amount of influence over the government. They would have much less influence over a watchdog group...particularly if there were rival watchdogs ready to attack their credibility at the first sign of a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine how they would have less influence over a private agency if they were said agency's sole customers. Even if they did, I don't see any benefit in moving drug oversight to the private realm.
 
Kandahar said:
They're banned? Really?! Is that just in London, or nationwide?

I'm guessing because the British government somehow views the leprechaun as "hate speech"? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sugar content if i remember correctly.

Seriously, you cannot buy it anywhere. [And i have looked] Nationwide i think.
It's on one of these lists for the Govt on what not to allow probably. lol :D
 
Last edited:
The Jovial One said:
It's like a dog whistle. Drudge tells the conservatives what they should be outraged about, and doggone it -- they're OUTRAGED.

FDA. FOOD and Drug Administration.

Cheerios makes claims that are not supported by fact. Since the FOOD and Drug Administration is responsible for making sure medical claims are substantiated, this is entirely within their pervue.

Seriously -- some of you cats need to stop using your heads as suppositories.
Click to expand...

Was anyone really outraged?
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
Its just like anything with those hardened marshmellows.

America has aisles in the supercenter markets dedicated to them.

List of cereals
Click to expand...

I don't eat cereal much but it's like a forbidden fruit. I'd just like to try it once at least lol

And damn you have alot of cereals o_O
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I disagree, because it is completely impossible for consumers to make intelligent decisions about powerful medications on their own. Without extensive clinical trials how can drug companies know what the side effects of, say, psychoactive drugs are before releasing them to consumers, to say nothing at all of what consumers would know.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of doing away with extensive trials...but neither am I in favor of the government banning the treatment entirely and/or holding the manufacturer liable before it's FDA-certified. There are hundreds of thousands of people who would be willing to try an experimental treatment to save their lives, but the FDA usually won't let them.

Kernel Sanders said:
Buy at your own risk is simply not a workable system when dealing with drugs that interact in an immensely complex fashion with the way that your body and mind operate.
Click to expand...

The current system doesn't make much sense. The FDA demands extensive testing for drugs, denying them to hundreds of thousands of people in the meantime...then finally they certify that they're safe to use. And if it later turns out that they were wrong and there ARE nasty side effects, the government holds the MANUFACTURER responsible even though the government itself certified they were safe to use.

If all drugs were "use at your own risk," the people who wanted to use experimental treatments could do so. And those who preferred to not take any chances could wait for independent certification of the drugs' safety.

Kernel Sanders said:
And that's only mentioning risks from drugs - determining their efficacy through the free market is what led to snake oil literally being sold as medicine. Without strong regulations how is a consumer to know the risk, and how are they to know the efficacy beyond what corporations' marketing departments say?
Click to expand...

Like I said, if the manufacturers are making patently false claims for their products, then they should absolutely be prosecuted for fraud. And in this case, there WOULD be a legitimate reason to sue them, even if drugs were "use at your own risk."

Kernel Sanders said:
Hell, how are doctors supposed to know unless medication is required to undergo rigorous control studies prior to approval. The FDA exists because precisely the system you described does not work. Companies would shove whatever crap they can pick up on the cheap into a bottle and sell it as a panacea, and how are consumers to tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Just because the FDA wouldn't exist doesn't mean that there would be no independent testing of the products. Doctors and consumers alike could get their information from these agencies. If a doctor didn't feel comfortable prescribing a medicine or if a patient didn't feel comfortable using a medicine, due to a lack of clinical tests, they would not be under any obligation to do so.

Kernel Sanders said:
I think that private oversight would be much more likely to go the way of finance ratings agencies. The pharmaceutical industry is already to close to the government for the consumer's good, and if they were directly paying the people charged with overseeing them I don't see anything positive coming from that situation.
Click to expand...

The Better Business Bureau is funded by businesses as well, but it values its credibility as an independent watchdog group. If it lost its credibility in the public's eyes, then businesses would have no reason to seek the BBB's approval and would stop giving them money.

Same reasoning here.

Kernel Sanders said:
And where would that agency get its money? I see two possibilities. It could be publicly funded, in which case it would be the FDA, or its certifications could be payed for by the companies wishing to get their drugs certified, in which case you end up with the medical equivalent of AAA rated CDS's, which would have as disastrous effects on public health as the econopocalypse did on the economy.
Click to expand...

The difference is that people aren't dying due to endless delays because the government tightly regulates the finance industry.

Kernel Sanders said:
I can't imagine how they would have less influence over a private agency if they were said agency's sole customers. Even if they did, I don't see any benefit in moving drug oversight to the private realm.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that people are not able to use promising treatments, even if both the patient and the doctor want to try it, because the government says it hasn't yet been proven to be safe. The FDA doesn't even consider the danger of *not* being able to use treatments.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm not in favor of doing away with extensive trials...but neither am I in favor of the government banning the treatment entirely and/or holding the manufacturer liable before it's FDA-certified. There are hundreds of thousands of people who would be willing to try an experimental treatment to save their lives, but the FDA usually won't let them.
Click to expand...

Where is the incentive to carry out expensive clinical trials if they are not required for approval?

The current system doesn't make much sense. The FDA demands extensive testing for drugs, denying them to hundreds of thousands of people in the meantime...then finally they certify that they're safe to use. And if it later turns out that they were wrong and there ARE nasty side effects, the government holds the MANUFACTURER responsible even though the government itself certified they were safe to use.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the FDA is in need of serious reform. Federal oversight is still the best solution, though.

If all drugs were "use at your own risk," the people who wanted to use experimental treatments could do so. And those who preferred to not take any chances could wait for independent certification of the drugs' safety.
Click to expand...

Certification that is payed for by the drug companies. I think a reasonable compromise would be to allow people to take experimental drugs after minimal testing (though not no testing) and require something similar to current procedures for general approval.

Like I said, if the manufacturers are making patently false claims for their products, then they should absolutely be prosecuted for fraud. And in this case, there WOULD be a legitimate reason to sue them, even if drugs were "use at your own risk."
Click to expand...

Fraudulent claims would be much less of a problem as misleading claims, which current false advertising legislation does a pretty poor job of regulating. With people's health on the line this is an unacceptable solution

Just because the FDA wouldn't exist doesn't mean that there would be no independent testing of the products. Doctors and consumers alike could get their information from these agencies. If a doctor didn't feel comfortable prescribing a medicine or if a patient didn't feel comfortable using a medicine, due to a lack of clinical tests, they would not be under any obligation to do so.
Click to expand...

And where does the money for independent testing come from?

The Better Business Bureau is funded by businesses as well, but it values its credibility as an independent watchdog group. If it lost its credibility in the public's eyes, then businesses would have no reason to seek the BBB's approval and would stop giving them money.

Same reasoning here.
Click to expand...

The BBB is able to remain neutral mainly because it deals with a massive spectrum of the economy and that most of the companies it rates are not contributors. One of the more common complaints of the BBB is that it does not act neutrally to its supporters. This problem would be amplified if every drug that some agency rated came from companies on whom it is financially dependent.

The difference is that people aren't dying due to endless delays because the government tightly regulates the finance industry.
Click to expand...

Under our current system twice as many people already die from adverse reactions to prescription drugs as do from motor vehicle accidents - and those numbers are likely an underestimation. If regulations were loosened to such an extreme degree I cannot fathom that it would save lives overall.

How about the fact that people are not able to use promising treatments, even if both the patient and the doctor want to try it, because the government says it hasn't yet been proven to be safe. The FDA doesn't even consider the danger of *not* being able to use treatments.
Click to expand...

Do you have any statistics on the number of deaths from treatments that are delayed by the FDA? I have a very hard time believing that it causes twice as many deaths as motor vehicle accidents, as approved, well regulated medications already do
 
Laila said:
I have always wanted to taste that but it's banned here :(
Click to expand...
Typical European mindset, always after America's lucky charms!:mrgreen:
 
americanwoman said:
Damn you're missing out. Lucky Charms are great. Can you get it shipped there? I'll send you a bowl. :lol:
Click to expand...

I've heard they taste great and i have a serious sweet tooth
I would love you forever if you sent me some! :)
 
winston53660 said:
:shock: Lucky Charms are banned. The world has gone to pot.:lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't find it anywhere.
I suppose i can understand the thinking behind it. Dentist would cost alot if everyone ate it
 
Laila said:
Yeah, I can't find it anywhere.
I suppose i can understand the thinking behind it. Dentist would cost alot if everyone ate it
Click to expand...

They have dentist in Britain?:mrgreen:

Lucky Charms were my fav when I was a kiddo.
 
winston53660 said:
They have dentist in Britain?:mrgreen:

Lucky Charms were my fav when I was a kiddo.
Click to expand...

LOL, my teeth are perfect and white thank you very much :D

I used to have Coco Pops
Kelloggs%20coco_pops.jpg


Had alot of chocolate in it, used to love it. I still do infact
 
danarhea said:
A list of drugs, folks:

Wellbutrin
Viagara
Xanax
Thorazine
Cheerios.......

Wait!!!! Cheerios? The cereal? Yup. According to the FDA, Cheerios is a drug because Cheerios markets the cereal as a healthy choice that helps reduce cholesterol. Therefore it must be regulated.
Click to expand...
Then I suppose Special-K cereal is now a dieretic since it promotes weight loss? Give me a break! :roll: How absord can government regulators get?

Wait...don't answer that...
 
Laila said:
I've heard they taste great and i have a serious sweet tooth
I would love you forever if you sent me some! :)
Click to expand...


Is that a federal offense? To send contraband via mail, cause I don't want to get an international manhunt over me for some Lucky Charms. :2razz:
 
americanwoman said:
Is that a federal offense? To send contraband via mail, cause I don't want to get an international manhunt over me for some Lucky Charms. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I hope not lol
Besides, UK is a bit stretched for funds to trace you in US :2wave:
 
akyron said:
Was anyone really outraged?
Click to expand...

Dude, just get use to this, there is gonna be alot of it.

No, nobody was really outraged by it. Jimmy Kimmel made fun of it last night in his show.

His commercial said Cheerios is good for erectile disfunction or something as the reason for the FDA looking into it.:rofl
 
danarhea said:
A list of drugs, folks:

Wellbutrin
Viagara
Xanax
Thorazine
Cheerios.......

Wait!!!! Cheerios? The cereal? Yup. According to the FDA, Cheerios is a drug because Cheerios markets the cereal as a healthy choice that helps reduce cholesterol. Therefore it must be regulated.

Is it just me, or does anybody else believe that the government has taken stupidity to heights never before imagined in their wildest hallucinations?

BREAKING NEWS: The government is about to declare pornography a drug because it gives us guys erections.

Doctor: "Never mind the Viagara. Here is a package with some very potent drugs in it. Take one Marilyn Chambers movie every night before bed time, and one playboy at any time you feel the urge but can't get it up. That will be $45.00 for the office visit and $600.00 for the porn....err, I mean medicine."

On the way home, the patient runs a red light. He tells the police officer that it was just an accident. It seems that the stick shift in his pants stuck, forcing his leg down on the gas pedal. The cop sees the porn in the passenger seat and arrests him for driving under the influence of drugs.

Yea, I know, I know, my story is stupid, but come on folks, it is not even 2% as stupid as the Federal government wanting to classify a cereal as a drug, is it?

Want to know what the most dangerous drug in the United States is? It is big government. It replaces heroin as the biggest monkey on peoples' backs.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

After tapping REFRESH 3 times the story never did load. Knowing the US government, I believe the story exists,... and tell your children, and tell them to tell theirs..., SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE...! :shock:
 
MrVicchio said:
If you bothered to READ the article, instead of assuming the government wasn't making an ass of itself... you'd realize the problem isn't with the CLAIMS but how they are displayed on a box of Cheerios. The FDA isn't contesting the claims, but the MARKETING style the Cheerios box is showing to the public.

I guess, when you live your life believing the Government is a benevolent force of good, one need not have factual information, just make insulting comments and display smugness.
Click to expand...
The Government is like a dog-whistle.... whenever it blows, the libs come running in to get them milk-bone.
 
American said:
The Government is like a dog-whistle.... whenever it blows, the libs come running in to get them milk-bone.
Click to expand...
Just like you're so predictable that we all knew you would take a potshot at "libs", because it's your M.O.?:blowup:
 
EgoffTib said:
Just like you're so predictable that we all knew you would take a potshot at "libs", because it's your M.O.?:blowup:
Click to expand...

Don't feed the troll. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom