View Single Post
Old 06-24-2009, 11:02 AM   #13
jinx
Come on, cat.
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
Quote:
“to allow such an article (vit B6) to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.”

According to the FDA, when cherry companies disseminate this peer-reviewed scientific information, the cherries become “unapproved new drugs” and are subject to seizure. The FDA warned that if those involved in “cherry trafficking” continue to inform consumers about these scientific studies, criminal prosecutions would ensue.

FDA stated that based on the claims made, Cheerios is now an unapproved drug, and must go through FDA new drug approval process.

For years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of fish oil for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process. This type of enforcement effectively censors scientific information and greatly restricts consumer access to scientific studies that provide valuable information.

In the case of pyridoxamine (B6), the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about money, and about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of what is supposed to be a public health organization in order to save their skins.


(link)
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.
jinx is offline   Reply With Quote