The Food and Drug Administration raised questions about three out of four studies General Mills used to support health claims for the nation's top-selling breakfast cereal, Cheerios. (One box of cereal out of every eight sold is Cheerios!) cereal This has caused concerns of false or misleading advertising.False or misleading information in advertising is known as deceptive or false advertising. Since advertising attempts to persuade consumers into buying products, many governments around the world have set regulations to control false or deceptive advertising. Truth in labeling is essentially the same concept, that consumers have the right to know what they are buying and that all necessary information should be on the label.
This summer General Mills argued that it should be allowed to say that a diet of Cheerios cuts levels of low-density lipoprotein (sometimes referred to as "bad") cholesterol by specific amounts. October 9th, the FDA sent a letter to the company addressing two other claims. They said that the statements, which appeared on boxes reading "4% in 6 weeks" and "10% in one month," were either too short or incomplete. Under the labeling laws, Cheerios may make the claim that it may make the claim it can lower the risk of coronary heart disease when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol. The law allows food manufacturers to make a second claim that specifically mentions a certain food, for Cheerios it's oats or "whole-grain food," as long as it's made as part of the more general claim about soluble fiber.
The FDA sent a warning letter to General Mills in May that talked about serious violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, drawing attention to the Cheerios claim that it can "lower your cholesterol 4 percent in six weeks." They said that the placement of the statement on Cheerios boxes were problematic, since the claim appeared in large print on the front of the box. A smaller, second statement appeared near the edge of the box reading cholesterol reduction also required a diet low in cholesterol. As proof, Cheerios responded by submitting four peer-reviewed studies they conducted in the past 11 years.
Barbara Schneeman, Director of the Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements in the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in her October 9th letter to General Mills that just one of the studies, Johnston (1998), stood up to her office's review. The study supports the claim that 3 grams per day of soluble fiber (meaning three servings or 3 cups of Cheerios per day) would cut bad cholesterol by 4 percent in six weeks, Schneeman wrote. Yet, health claims must take into account not just one study, but every relevant study, according to FDA rules, and the three other studies that General Mills submitted don't seem to clearly support the claim, Schneeman wrote, referring to Karmally (2005), Reynolds (2000) and Maki (2009). Two of the studies don't report the average cholesterol reduction for people in the study who ate Cheerios vs. people who didn't eat Cheerios. The third study lasted four weeks, not the six weeks suggested in the Cheerios claim.
The FDA said that they did not hold enough strength to support the claim and that to make such a bold statement they must take into account not just one study, but every relevant study. The FDA's letter also said that both the "4 percent in 6 weeks" claim and the "10 percent in one month" claim are based on three servings (3 cups) of Cheerios daily. The letter went on to suggest that the phrases might need to be reworked to make it clear that they don't refer to a single serving. Cheerios is still standing behind belief and is battling with the FDA, but has removed the statements from their products.
This is an example of a disclaimer violation and further, a manipulation of standards violation. Often companies use disclaimers to try and absolve themselves of their legal responsibility for their own actions. Along with unreasonable conditions usually there is a fine print in hopes that consumers will commit themselves without reading it. When a company manipulates a standard, they make something have a different meaning than what it is widely understood as.
I don't think this type of advertising is right. So often in reports and advertisements we see facts that we just accept right away. We don't question really where they've come from or the resource. I think it's good that we have organizations such as the FDA, FTC and other government organizations watching out for unreliable statements and that there are punishments. I don't think that General Mills handled this situation very well at all. They do not to seem to see their statement as wrong in anyway and don't appear to be concerned with telling the public the truth. Lastly, I don't think this issue will hurt the Cheerios or General Mills brand very much, if at all, but I am glad they took these generalized samples off their products.
No comments:
Post a Comment