I just came across this page that based on the date, it's at least a year old.

Is this a sign of things to come?

yeah, apparently so...( accorindg to how the FDA is acting.. in its usual discombobulated degenerative manner) cherries are drugs
so is greenz

i'm a green druggie

and proud of it

We got to organize and fight this, write emails etc, what should we do as a team?

Do you have a less biasis article?

That was kind of (very) anti-FDA, in fact since they seem to focus more being anti-FDA than on the actually effects this action could have, I must take that with a pinch of salt.

I'm not pro-FDA or anything, but I can't accept information which is heavily unbalanced.

It could turn out to be a mistake or nothing...

Thanks,
Ian.

Ian:

On the surface it may seem to be a biased article, if not a figment of someone with an extended imagination. But in view of anti natural modalities trend by the powers that be that stand to be financially affected by people who choose to take responsibility for their health with a view, not of suppressing symptoms, but if at all possible to get to the cause, I wouldn't be surprised if steps are taken to limit beneficial information.

For instance, there have been several recent posts re the April 30th deadline to submit comments on the FDA's plan re its position on various forms of 'Complementary & Alternative Medicine'. Have you read it? If not, here is the link: FDA Draft Guidance.

That document obviously did not come from someone or an organization with an anti-FDA bias. Yet, even this document, dated later than the one mentioned at the beginning of the post, shares a common thread as far as the FDA reserving the right to classify a substance grown in nature as a drug.



Wishing you vibrant health

Thanks Pistachio!

I don't think this is some much figment of someones imagination, but the approach of LEF is too focused on hating the FDA ("COMMIES IN THE WOOD PILE! COMMIES IN THE WOOD PILE!" to be useful.

The pdf is a much better read than the first article, thanks for sharing.

(From page 12 of pfd)
"To illustrate how a CAM practice might involve "foods", juice therapy uses juice made from vegetables and fruits. Absent any claims that would make the juice subject to the drug definition, the juice would be a "food" under section 201(f) of the Act (Act 21 U.S.C 321(f)) because it is an article used for food or drink for man."

It appears they are NOT trying to regulate health foods as drugs, but they are trying to regulate advertising/promotion techniques people are using when they make medical claims about their product.

While I think they seem to have been a little too enthusiastic about enforcing it (or not, we only really have one sided info from the FDA-haters about the enforcement), I think this could be a good think. I'm REALLY fedup of some of the BULLSHIT that some people put out about raw foods, and as raw foods start to become more and more mainstream people need some sort of protection from bogus claims from the numerous crack pots.

If people want to sell cherries and publish information about how they (*might*) cure cancer, then they should be subjected to the same regulation as the drug companies doing the same thing (selling something and publishing information saying it might cure cancer). If they want to sell cherries, then sell cherries, if they are curing cancer with cherries, they better back it up with evidence held the same standards as drug companies.

I hope the FDA takes a look at rawfood(dis)advantage.com..... ;-)

Anyway, this is worth watching, but I don't see any resaon to be alarmed.

This may even workout well for raw foods. If the FDA ended up on our side then it could put an end to people selling non-raw foods as raw foods and maybe generally better labeling of raw products.

Cheers,
Ian.