FDA prohibits omega-3 content claims

Ben

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
497
This could be a good thing since then some people will not think "Oh, high in DHA? That must be a good thing, I'm buying this!". This is significant for cooking oils, since they advertise omega-3 content quite a lot on the containers. They may also pay attention more to PUFA-MUFA/SFA ratio instead of omega-3 to 6 ratio, which may cause them to think, "Hm, how can coconut oil be healthy if it's saturated fat?". Then they realize fast food restaurants use PUFA, and MUFA/SFA cause less weight gain, and PUFA will become less popular. Then it's not omega-3 is good, omega-6 is bad, but then "PUFA is PUFA, is PUFA bad or is it good?"

FDA has so much corruption, like with GMO promotion, it's good they took one step that will likely turn out to be good. I look forward to the days when I can walk in a fast-food restaurant, and comfortably know I'm avoiding toxic PUFAs. Nobody knows when this will be, of course no RP follower is helpless to speed up the process either.
 
OP
S
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
It wouldn't be too hard for the oil companies, I think, to lobby for some RDA's. This is just a formality for the FDA, and formalities are the only thing that takes priority over money, in their mind.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
its pretty awesome but kind of scary, well I see how it could be. Im glad the FDA is saying this...its crazy, without basic formalities, can you imagine what the types of claims people would make would be? It would be even worse than with supplements. They should likewise start banning anything that claims benefit from or as being 'high in antioxidants' , 'low glycemic', 'raw', 'high in chlorophyll, 'high in fiber', 'contains enzymes' and a lot of other stuff being thrown around. It would be better if things had to say like 'used pesticideds' , or ' used inedible chemicals while processing', or 'contains flesh of a sick albino animal' , and the like....if the whole idea was really for peoples well being
 
OP
S
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
pboy said:
its pretty awesome but kind of scary, well I see how it could be. Im glad the FDA is saying this...its crazy, without basic formalities, can you imagine what the types of claims people would make would be? It would be even worse than with supplements. They should likewise start banning anything that claims benefit from or as being 'high in antioxidants' , 'low glycemic', 'raw', 'high in chlorophyll, 'high in fiber', 'contains enzymes' and a lot of other stuff being thrown around. It would be better if things had to say like 'used pesticideds' , or ' used inedible chemicals while processing', or 'contains flesh of a sick albino animal' , and the like....if the whole idea was really for peoples well being

Now with 20% authentic smoked Cherry sawdust
 

Ben

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
497
PUFA content varies quite a bit, and RP has stated this himself. Omega-3 and omega-6 content probably varies even more, thus why the FDA made this decision. Cold temperature increases the formation of PUFA in plants and animals, and obviously temperature fluctuates quite a bit. RP even mentioned "pigs in sweaters", haha.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Ben said:
PUFA content varies quite a bit, and RP has stated this himself. Omega-3 and omega-6 content probably varies even more, thus why the FDA made this decision. Cold temperature increases the formation of PUFA in plants and animals, and obviously temperature fluctuates quite a bit. RP even mentioned "pigs in sweaters", haha.

I think it's true that these PUFAs would vary. But that's not why the FDA say they made the decision. My reading is that they say there is no adequate guideline established for recommended intake of the specified PUFAs. Several guidelines have been proposed, but the guidelines don't meet the FDA's standards. Lots of nutrients in food vary hugely depending on growing conditions etc. For instance, mineral content in fruit and veges depends on what is available in soil, speed of growth, etc. I'm not aware of the FDA taking that into account in food labelling regulations.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom