A posse of attorneys general that includes Colorado’s own John Suthers has saved us from the false promise of yogurt. Thanks, guys. Lord knows we wouldn’t want to be eating too much of the stuff when we could be spending our money on fast food.
Yet even if the $21 million settlement announced last week with Dannon, which will be divided among 39 states, amounts to a minor victory for marketing honesty, should we really be happy with the way government regulates food advertising?
Yes, Dannon does seem to have oversold the possible health benefits from its Activia yogurt and DanActive dairy drink, which contain the beneficial bacteria known as probiotics. Still, the government’s description of Dannon’s sins appears overwrought as well.
For example, does touting Activia for its alleged ability to “help regulate your digestive system . . . naturally” really amount to an implicit claim, as the government insists, “that Activia provided consumers with bowel movements at fixed, uniform or normal intervals”? Doesn’t the word “help” qualify any such implication?
Why do so many crackdowns on misleading ads seem to assume consumers are idiots? Where is the fool who still hasn’t learned that all advertising gilds the lily?
In this day and age, fortunately, it’s easier than ever to check suspiciously grandiose claims — and it would be easier still if bureaucrats wouldn’t stand in the way.
Among the biggest obstacles to consumer-friendly food advertising are restrictions on companies touting scientific studies suggesting health benefits from their product. Congressman Jared Polis, a Democrat from Colorado’s 2nd District, has noticed this oddity, and responded by co-sponsoring the Free Speech About Science Act with Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz.
Their bill would allow food producers and dietary supplement manufacturers to cite “legitimate peer-reviewed scientific studies on the health benefits of these products without being classified as a new, unapproved drug by the FDA,” according to a description provided by Polis’ office. “Current law outlaws any reference to a scientific study relating to the health benefits of a food or dietary supplement by producers, manufacturers and sellers of these products . . . . The effect of current law is to censor science and prevent people from accessing this information.”
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. Some growers’ claims were cartoonish (consuming cherries is “like unleashing inside your body an entire army of James Bond-type agents who are adept at neutralizing cancer-causing agents”), but others were carefully qualified and sometimes included links to relevant studies. Such distinctions were irrelevant. All such activities, in the FDA’s words, “cause your products to be drugs.”
POM Wonderful, the pomegranate juice seller that is also being hounded by regulators over advertising claims, offers a link on its website to “view research studies on POM Wonderful products.” Follow the link, though, and you will be warned, “You are now leaving the POM Wonderful website” and that the studies “are not intended to make express or implied health or disease claims . . . .”
Having to provide such disclaimers is absurd. When did it become government’s job to regulate references to research? As Polis told me, “I don’t think we need to protect consumers from themselves.”
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
