FDA defeated in federal court over censorship of truthful health claims

[IScreamSundays]

Source: Natural News

(NaturalNews) Health freedom has just been handed a significant victory by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which ruled last week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated the First Amendment rights of a nutritional supplement company when it censored truthful, scientifically-backed claims about how selenium can help reduce the risk of cancer.

Essentially, the FDA applied its doctrine of censorship to these selenium supplements in the same way it oppresses truthful and scientifically-supported health claims across all dietary supplements. The purpose of the FDA's censorship of truthful information about the health benefits of dietary supplements, as NaturalNews readers already know, is to keep the American people nutritionally illiterate and protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

In this court case, ALLIANCE FOR NATURAL HEALTH, et al. vs.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, et al., the judge ruled that the FDA violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs by restricting their free speech about the anti-cancer benefits of their selenium supplements.

As explained by health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord who argued the case before the Court: "The decision... reaffirms that FDA is subject to the strictures of the First Amendment in its evaluation of health claims and it faults FDA for failing to follow that standard, holding its suppression of the selenium-cancer risk reduction claims unconstitutional."

snip>

Read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028929_FDA_health_claims.html

[Oregone]

1. Reads like propaganda

"the FDA applied its doctrine of censorship to these selenium supplements in the same way it oppresses truthful and scientifically-supported health claims across all dietary supplements"

[Posteritatis]

3. It's naturalnews.com; of course it's propaganda

(inb4 kneejerk accusations that I'm a Big Pharma spy.)

[Wednesdays]

5. I'm confused. This particular judgement didn't occur?

:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

6. Natural News is one of those "assume they're lying until proven otherwise" sites

Both about things like judgements or laws they mention and the medical information they claim to profess. It's a propaganda site as much as Fox News or Indymedia or Monsanto's PR department is, though I imagine a popular one around here because it tends to reinforce the local worldviews.

[msanthrope]

7. It didn't happen in any way claimed by the OP......

The court denied all injunctions demanded by Plaintiffs, and merely granted remand to the FDA in order for it to draft proper disclaimers on the cancer claims.

And the court did something interesting in its conclusion---it left up the agency the possibility that there could be no disclaimer that alleviated consumer confusion....

So this press release is blowing smoke up the ass of anyone unable to read a ruling.



http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100527c10

[fascisthunter]

2. so who runs our government? Oh yeah, corporate America

or are they one and the same now?

[tabasco]

4. Sure would hate to take a nickel away from Pfizer.

Can't allow that!

[msanthrope]

8. Having read the actual ruling, I call bullshit.

The Plaintiff didn't get a single injunction.

They got remand on some claims. Said remand is for the FDA to draft proper disclaimers on the cancer claims.

But, the court stated that it was entirely possible that disclaimers would not alleviate consumer confusion--which puts the Plaintiff back to square one.

I wouldn't call this a win--merely a slim chance to market a product with FDA disclaimers.

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100527c10