Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Change We Can Taste (And Smell).
The Washington Post observes that after years of seat-filling Republican appointees at major consumer regulatory agencies, the Obama administration's officials are actually enforcing the law:
In their first few months on the job, FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg and deputy Joshua M. Sharfstein -- both with backgrounds running public health agencies -- notified General Mills that it was violating the law with its two-year-old marketing campaign that said Cheerios can lower cholesterol by 4 percent. The FDA said the company was essentially making a drug claim, which would require clinical studies and agency approval before a product is put on the market. The food giant has removed that claim from its Web site and a spokeswoman said it is in discussions with the FDA.While the FDA began looking into Cheerios before Obama's election, several lawyers who represent food and drugmakers said they think the agency under Bush would never have taken action against General Mills.
In the grand scheme of things, unproven claims about a cereal's magic powers aren't the end of the world -- although you can imagine people not seeking proper cholesterol treatment if they think Cheerios will solve that problem -- but you have to be struck by the frank admission that the previous administration would let corporations claim essentially anything without any sanction. It gets more serious:
That same month, the FDA warned consumers to stop using popular cold medicines, Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel and Zicam Cold Remedy swab products, citing evidence that some consumers could lose their sense of smell. The agency had known about the problem for years but had not addressed it.
That, in a nut shell, is the kind of governance you get when you appoint federal officials who don't believe the law should be enforced. Sure, people are losing their sense of smell, but they just couldn't bear to intervene in the economy. No doubt they expected the market would sort that one out.
More broadly, though, even as progressives go after the Obama administration on all the big stuff it's getting wrong or not quite right enough, it's important to appreciate the smaller changes happening in the everyday administration of government duties.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (22)
How about enforcing rules against age discrimination? When does that start again?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2009 2:14 PM
It's not that they don't think the law should be enforced, in so many words, but that it's not the place of government to intervene. They really do think the market will sort it out.
But good regulation is a shortcut for the market sorting it out. In the example of the Zicam products, the government steps in, quickly provides the necessary exposure of information, and then stops the product from being sold in that dangerous form. The market may well have sorted it out, but at the cost of many more people losing their sense of smell.
When government recognizes the natural place that the market should be or will eventually get to and that consumers would benefit by getting to that place sooner, then government should intervene. Whether that's product safety or eliminating the unfair advantages of monopolies, it is in the interest of the people and therefore the government to regulate the markets.
Posted by: Joseph Nobles | October 13, 2009 2:20 PM
This is great news. I know DHS will start enforcing immigration law any day now and start deporting illegal aliens, and Eric Holder will reinstate the verdicts against the New Black Party members who intimidated voters in Philadelphia and actual put them in jail. And I know that Tim Fernholz will be praising DHS and Holder without end for finally doing their job. Yippie for the new day and tone of law enforcement!
Posted by: zachgarber | October 13, 2009 2:51 PM
Can we expect Obama and Holder to pursue Rangel with at least as much energy as Cheerios?
Posted by: Bill45 | October 13, 2009 3:01 PM
The way the "market sorts it out" is by proliferating unfounded and false claims until consumers cease to believe anything that is printed on a package. If I'm selling cereal and GM is eating my lunch with its false claims about which the government does nothing, then I am forced to put forward my own equally specious advertising. Nobody wins in this kind of competition.
Posted by: mfwesq | October 13, 2009 3:01 PM
Hey yahoos,
The post is about FDA protecting us from dangerous products and false claims. DHS and Holder wasn't mentioned once.
Try to keep up, even though it's hard.
Posted by: howie | October 13, 2009 3:05 PM
Re: the comments above:
There are 100,000 who leave every month because they're either kicked out, or asked to leave and they comply.
Holder can't reinstate verdicts - AG's don't have that power in America.
Posted by: American Citizen | October 13, 2009 3:07 PM
My good friends, for the first time in our history, a U.S. President has returned from General Mills bringing more accurate food claims, with honour.
I believe it is better Cheerios for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
Posted by: CC | October 13, 2009 3:11 PM
Perhaps Zicam products afflicted more people than previously thought - at least that seems the only reasonable explanation for being unable to smell the stench rising from rising from an indefensible reading (at least based on the Wash. Post article) of the law. Does Cheerios' claim really constitute a "drug claim"? Does a claim that exercise is good for you also constitute a "drug claim"?
Maybe this is a case of the Bush Administration refusing to enforce a law that doesn't exist, and the current administration trying to do something it lacks the legal authority to do.
As for "shortcutting" a market "sort-out", such a view is shortsighted. Such interventions cause market distortions and inhibits the "sorting-out" you reference. A consumer who believes he is protected from any poor choice he might make by a government bureaucracy becomes less and less likely to do due diligence and make good choices.
Posted by: matt curtis | October 13, 2009 3:19 PM
Obama should stop second-guessing his military leadership. If General Mills says more cholesterol is needed, send more cholesterol!
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | October 13, 2009 3:26 PM
Um, American Citizen?
Maybe you should study up before you make stupid comments like this:
"Holder can't reinstate verdicts - AG's don't have that power in America."
Here's a start:
http://bit.ly/wjmXY
Posted by: chasflemming | October 13, 2009 3:37 PM
Please, Obama, protect me from Cheerios.
Posted by: Bo D. | October 13, 2009 3:57 PM
The claim on the box says that it is clinically proven. My question is how does the FDA know that it is NOT clinically proven? Sounds to me like Geeral Mills didn't cross all the 't's and dot all the 'i's on their gubm'nt application. The natural reaction of a liberal fascist would be to impose penalties, since they believe that tyranny is good. (Even/especially if it's petty tyranny.)
Posted by: Philster | October 13, 2009 4:16 PM
It's not a "false" claim. It just doesn't have the same level of proof a drug manufacturer is required to meet to get FDA approval. Probably because IT'S NOT A DRUG. Other similar "unprovable" claims pass muster under FTC standards all the time, e.g., "Nothing gets your teeth whiter." What's the big deal? Unless its provably false, don't waste taxpayer money going after it.
Posted by: Dave H | October 13, 2009 4:26 PM
Finally, breakfast is safe again. Is it too early for next year's Nobel nominations?
Posted by: billy | October 13, 2009 4:58 PM
"In the grand scheme of things, unproven claims about a cereal's magic powers aren't the end of the world"
Perhaps someone should alert the Department of Paranormal Research and Defense about the "magically delicious" Lucky Charms?
Posted by: mere mortal | October 13, 2009 7:00 PM
"The post is about FDA protecting us from dangerous products and false claims. DHS and Holder wasn't mentioned once."
No, the post is about how this new FDA ruling proves that Obama administration is being more diligent about enforcing the law. I'd say that evidence that the Obama administration is being derelict at enforcing the law in much more important areas is relevant.
Posted by: lolwhat | October 13, 2009 7:16 PM
Hey guys, thanks for the info.
Since both Cheerios and my cholesterol drug are both "clinically tested", I'll drop the cholesterol drug and depend on Cheerios to protect my heart.
Now can someone tell me which tooth whitener will extend my life?
Posted by: MoneySaver | October 13, 2009 7:55 PM
I wonder if the FDA will be as vigorous going after the dubious claims of homeopathic remedies, yoga, natural food and "natural" remedies, and other nostrums popular on the cultural and political left as they are going after agribusiness corporations.
Posted by: Bozoer Rebbe | October 13, 2009 10:07 PM
Maybe since the Obama administration will enforce the "little" laws (oats are drugs, too), he figures e can ignore the "big" laws. Like telling the bankers "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks," oblivious to The Constitution itself.
Posted by: Cap'n Rusty | October 13, 2009 11:35 PM
In internet time Obama's already on the last quarter of his last term.
No more delays! The time for waiting is OVER.
Posted by: V.O.R. | October 14, 2009 12:09 AM
Nope, the Republican Congress in the 90s exempted them after the industry ginned up "they're trying to ban your supplements" outrage. (Not unlike the recent industry-organized "grassroots" health protests.) That's why you have unsupported health claims right and left for anything "herbal."
Posted by: Redshift | October 14, 2009 12:33 AM