FDA attacks small nutrition companies13 years, 6 months ago
Posted on Nov 09, 2006, 5 a.m.
By Bill Freeman
On October 19, 2006, the FDA fired off twenty-four warning letters to small nutrition companies that made claims they had natural remedies to help with diabetes. At first glance, one might think the FDA was actually doing its job. With tremendous bravado they announced to the world their trouncing of internet fraud. It is interesting how the FDA is now teaming up with Mexican and Canadian health authorities to attack American companies, part of the FDA
The mighty FDA muscle had not been flexed so diligently for almost a year. The last victims were cherry farmers, terrorized for quoting solid science that cherries may help people reduce inflammation and pain without any side effects. The FDA knew Vioxx posed cardiovascular risks, yet they let it on the market to kill over 50,000 Americans. We should be proud the FDA was able to defend us from healthy fresh fruit.
All Americans have to do is walk down any grocery store cereal or juice aisle to see outlandish health claims for heart disease and cholesterol reduction being placed on sugar-laden junk food. It pays to be a big company; profiting by producing garbage food that helps create obesity and consequently diabetes.
The FDA is like the neighborhood bully that only picks on people that have little chance of winning or even fighting back. If they actually had to tackle a real issue they would cower in their boots and run for cover.
The FDA Protects Big Pharma from Competition
The FDA was within their rights to send warning letters. True enough, some of these small companies had stepped over the line. Had they harmed anybody? Most of the nutrients in the products being offered actually have considerable science showing they may help diabetes. What is the FDA really afraid of? People getting better? People learning what options they have to the drug racket of the sickness industry? Maybe the FDA is trying to distract the public, portraying themselves as effective while they continue to this day to allow thousands of Americans to be injured and die in the name of profits for Bayer.
The FDA justified beating up on small American companies in this way: “We will not tolerate practices that raise false hopes and bilk consumers of precious health care dollars,” said Margaret O’K. Glavin, FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. “Diabetes requires effective treatments and aggressive management, not bogus and unproven products.”
And what are these effective treatments? A commonly used FDA-approved diabetes drug, Actos, has been found to increase edema and heart failure and have no benefit to diabetic patients. Another diabetes drug, Metformin, is known to cause B12 deficiency that will certainly increase the risk for neuropathy. Then there is the expensive new diabetes drug, Januvia, expected to have sales of a billion dollars. Once again, the drug only treats symptoms and does not fix the cause of the problem. When doctors put patients on insulin to control type II diabetes the typical outcome is that blood sugar is lowered by stuffing calories into fat, a medical treatment that causes fatigue and further obesity. If we took the FDA statement about “bilking consumers” at face value many common FDA-approved diabetes treatments would need to be shut down. Is it any wonder individuals are desperately looking for help?
The FDA is Guilty of Selective Enforcement
The FDA is discriminatory against small nutritional companies. This is because the FDA is avidly seeking to create a New World Order in which all supplement companies are owned or controlled by Big Pharma, and all therapeutic nutritional supplements are removed from the free market.
Conspicuously missing from the list of companies receiving a diabetes warning letter is Nutrition 21, a company whose largest shareholder is Wyeth. Nutrition 21 filed for and the FDA approved a limited health claim that states, “One small study suggests that chromium picolinate may reduce the risk of insulin resistance, and therefore possibly may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. FDA concludes, however, that the existence of such a relationship between chromium picolinate and either insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes is highly uncertain.” This health claim may be used for any chromium picolinate product. Read Full Story