The Evil Insanity of the F.D.A. Continues: They Attack Nestle Corporation for 'Unapproved Claims' About Nutrition Verses Antibiotics

Written by Sarah Cain Tuesday, 22 December 2009 18:44

When George Orwell wrote in 1984 about the adaptation of the language to remove words that were unacceptable, we must wonder if groups like the F.D.A. were what he had in mind.  As 2009 comes to an end, we live in a society where certain words can only be spoken by select individuals, and phrases which are 'unapproved' by the F.D.A. usually result in large fines, along with armed raids of the "criminals'" homes.

For decades, the F.D.A. has worked alongside the pharmaceutical industry to attack small businesses for making "unapproved medical claims" about their products.  Increasingly, the organization has begun attacking larger businesses.  Cheerios was a recent target, because they dared to mention the scientifically documented benefits of whole grains.  Now it is Nestle under fire.  While this is not a company that we would normally support, we strongly believe in the right to speak freely.  Freedom of speech is paramount in any society that wishes to thrive.

The FDA has sent two warning letters to Nestle so far, detailing their purportedly unlawful use of the language.  The first letter was to the CEO of Nestle, and the second letter was to the president of the Nestle HealthCare Nutrition department.  Here are some examples of Nestle's "illegal" claims:

• "Sugar-free"
• "No sugar added"
• "Naturally Low in Sugar"
• "If your child has stomach problems, such as diarrhea caused by antibiotics, probiotic's may help rebuild a healthy colony of good bacteria"

We suspect the last one really got a red alert going, since it supports the methodologies of alternative medicine.  In fact, the F.D.A.'s behavior could be driven entirely by a need for vengeance.  In that one statement, the atypically honest people at Nestle committed the sacrilege of citing the detrimental effects of antibiotics on children, while simultaneously recommending a safer alternative approach for them.  Some people at Nestle obviously did their homework, and happen to care about the welfare of children as well.  These are dangerous things in the F.D.A.'s marketplace, and the F.D.A. is currently in the process of explaining it to them.

"The FDA protects the big drug companies, and is subsequently rewarded, and using the government's police powers, they attack those who threaten the big drug companies.  People think that the FDA is protecting them.  It isn't.  What the FDA is doing, and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day."

According to the FDA, products may not be marketed as 'sugar-free' if the intended consumer is under two years old.  Thus, parents have no right to know about the processed sugars that are present in their infants' foods.  Parents only have this right when their child is older, and some of the damage may already be done.  Both of the warning letters ended with this threat:

"You should take prompt action to correct these violations.  Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory actions without further notice, such as seizure and/or injunction."

Translated: this means the F.D.A. may appear with armed thugs, hold people at gun point, treat them like criminals for violating a non-existent law that is outside their jurisdiction, steal at gun-point ("confiscate") millions of dollars worth of baby food ― because the so-called "criminals" are trying to make children healthier by giving parents honest information about gastrointestinal health.  This is exactly what alternative health practitioners and supplement companies have been dealing with for half a century.  This behavior isn't regulating.  It is racketeering.

One of the letters requires that the response be mailed to Quyen Tien, Compliance Officer.  Does that give you an eery chill, too?  It is just a matter of time before a large company decides to stand against the F.D.A.,  in favor of both consumers, and freedom of speech.  When did society allow an agency, created by presidential decree, to ignore the Constitutional right to speak freely and honestly?  Do those rights simply disappear if you have something to sell that threatens the lavish profits of the pharmaceutical industry?

We do hope that Nestle decides to fight the F.D.A. on this topic, but no statements have come from the company so far.  In a jury trial, we feel confident that the American people would side with freedom of speech over the power-mad decrees of the Food and Drug Administration.  We pray that such a day comes soon.

We normally avoid all candy, and advise our readers to do the same.  We will be making an exception this year, and buying candy for Christmas that is exclusively made by Nestle.  We ask that our readers do the same.  Note that we have no relationship with Nestle, business or otherwise.