Health claims have the potential to make big money because there are millions of unsuspecting consumers yearning for a healthy life style clutching on to such claims for solace to them. That very few label claims are based on any focused research studies are lost on these consumers and this opens virtually a gold mine for amassing fortunes by unethical manufacturers of such products with suspect credentials. While EU countries are getting more and more stringent in allowing health claims unless scientifically validated, most other countries give lot of leeway to the industry in making such claims based on scant scientific evidence. Here is an example of a manufacturer promising "heaven" to the consumers if his products based on the fruit pomegranate are bought and consumed with insufficient evidence to support the same.
"While not disputing that the company's medical studies exist, the commission says that the company's advertising claims overstate the results and ignore that the pomegranate products often showed no more efficacy than a placebo. In addition to the juice, Pom Wonderful sells POMx pill and liquid supplements. The commission cited examples of Pom advertising that said the products produced "improved heart and prostate health and better erectile function." Among the results of various studies were a reduction in plaque buildup in the carotid artery and in blood pressure, and slower progression of an indicator for prostate cancer. Those results ignored the fact, the commission contended, that as early as May 2007 the company knew that a large study financed by the company showed no significant difference in arterial plaque buildup after 18 months between patients who drank Pom and those who drank a placebo. The commission also stated that the company's prostate-related claims relied on a study that itself notes uncertainty as to whether the outcomes cited by the company were relevant as an indication of clinical benefit. It also said the company's studies on erectile function produced no statistically significant results. Pom strongly disputed the commission's assertions. "We do not make claims that our products act as drugs," the company said. "What we do, rather, is communicate, through advertising, the promising science relating to pomegranates. Consumers and their health providers have a right to know about this research and its results." The commission proposed an order that would require the company to get F.D.A. approval before it makes any future claims that its products prevent or treat serious diseases".
A more interesting point to note from this episode is that it is not the FDA of the US which found the products not up to the claims made by the manufacturer but the Federal Trade Commission vested with the responsibility of ensuring transparency and fairness in business in that country. Normally the FDA should have taken measures to preempt such incidences with sufficient infrastructure at its disposal to scientifically evaluate market products and it did not do so speaks volume about its efficiency as a watch dog for food safety.
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment