Sponsored by Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), it would OK some now-banned health claims about food. “A few years ago, for example, the Food and Drug Administration sent warning letters to orchards that had boasted that tart cherries contained antioxidants, anti-inflammatory agents and other beneficial properties…. All such activities, in the FDA’s words, ’cause your products to be drugs.'” [Vincent Carroll, Denver Post]
4 Comments
The orchards might have lucked out – now some researchers are claiming that (some/most/maybe all) “anti-oxidants” cause cancer, to the extent that they’ve had to shut down some studies for ethical reasons.
This is an odd situation that it’s hard (for me) to take a side on. For example, many makers of green tea would tout the anti-oxidant content, but the plain old coffee that everyone drinks contains even more! (For example, see this article quoting the American Chemical Society: http://www.physorg.com/news6067.html )
So it was sort of misleading for makers of “healthy organic green tea” to say “rich in antioxidants” when there was nothing particularly special about it. And, in fact, assuming antioxidants are healthy, advertising that causes someone to switch from coffee to an alternative product that has antioxidant labeling may cause a consume to make a choice that is less healthy.
Robert: If Hershey’s can get away with labeling its chocolate-flavor syrup “fat free” then I can’t see why it’s unacceptable for drink manufacturers to claim that their drinks have antioxidants in them.
The etymology of antioxidant suggests that this compound is against oxygen, and we all know oxygen is good for us, so of course it follows that antioxidants must be bad. Down with antioxidants!
Wait a second, this isn’t the climate thread..