I apologize that my first article has cause confusion and have linked to another through the USDA. I thought it was interesting that those with the highest systolic blood pressure readings at the start of the study (129 or above) had a greater response to hibiscus tea.

Since blood pressure readings of 120 over 80 or greater are considered a risk factor for heart disease, stroke and kidney disease and the sample patients were otherwise healthy and walked out six weeks later with significantly reduced bp levels I think this could be a really good alternative therapy.

Yes, obviously. If someone has been diagnosed with a particular condition where low blood pressure is not desirable, they should not do things to lower their blood pressure. If such a condition has not been recognized, the ideal blood pressure is generally considered to be 120 or below, and 112 is not too low for the average person. It's a non-issue, and your attempt to make it one strikes me as disingenuous.

And exactly what percent of studies that are focused on lowering blood pressure discuss this obscure topic you raised? Very few. That doesn't really mean much, except that your criticism is invalid. Do you think that most studies on obesity spend time discussing the potential dangers of being underweight for a small subset of people with a particular condition? No, they talk about reducing BMI and getting to a lower weight, not some obscure, irrelevant case as you are obsessing on.

>> Still looking for an answer to my question: seeing as you've variously said hibiscus tea is "useful and safe" for treating blood pressure or that it has "potential", what do you think those who have hypertension should do: use this tea to self-treat or get a physician's advice on treatment before doing so?

Sorry, I'm not going to play your little games. If you want to say something, say it yourself.

>>In previous threads about other herbal remedies that you've highly praised, it's similarly been very difficult or impossible to get you to commit yourself to recommend a course of action for patients, even on a general basis. Does something alarm you about standing by such treatments?

Not at all. I am not here to practice medicine and do things like diagnose or "recommend a course of action for patients." Are you here as a doctor, making such recommendations? If so, what state licensure do you operate under?

I don't view this as a "game"; it's a serious matter deserving of a response.

I'd respond in more detail but the exchanges would probably wind up in the memory hole again.

No one is telling people they should do anything. Apollog was saying it would be a good option. There is no harm in saying that. Anyone who will take the advice of anyone here without getting the opinion of their physician or herbalist or whomever they trust to monitor their health has not read the forum rules of engagement.

It's an opinion. It's not advice. And it's not specific to anyone.

First, have we established that things like hibiscus and bananas are in fact drugs? We have not. Research shows that they can be effective in lowering blood pressure, but just because they contain anthocyanins or potassium or other valuable nutrients does not make these foods into drugs.

Second, I am not encouraging people to take hibiscus tea - in the previous post, you were complaining that it was "very difficult or impossible to get you to commit yourself to recommend a course of action for patients." I am discussing what is known about hibiscus - if you have additional info, by all means share it.

Let me make it clear that even though the article below shows that bananas can lower blood pressure and angiotensin activity, and even though the DASH diet with its emphasis on eating more fruits and veggies is widely regarded as a healthy way for many to improve their blood pressure ... in spite of these things, I am not telling people to eat bananas! People will have to make that decision for themselves. Maybe they are allergic to bananas, maybe they had a bad experience with bananas as a child ... regardless, not my dietary decision to make.

Of course. A drug is defined as a substance used as a medication. Herbal remedies used to treat a health problem are by definition drugs. In the case of hibiscus tea, the active element(s) are thought to be anthocyanins - chemical components affecting biochemical processes.

Anyone knowledgeable about the power of certain herbs to affect the human body for good or ill respects them as medications.

I have as you know posted information here about hibiscus tea (it disappeared into the void along with several other of our posts). I trust that the link can be reposted as it is not exactly controversial (it refers to the Tufts study on hibiscus tea). Note the reference to needing more research on whether the antihypertensive effect of this tea can be sustained long-term (long-term safety is another issue I referred to earlier). There's also a statement about most herbal teas sold in the U.S. containing hibiscus - but it's unclear what kind of hibiscus and whether the amounts are enough to have any effect on blood pressure.

It's for reasons like this that I suggest that people contemplating herbal therapy for serious and potentially life-threatening disorders consult a physician first to learn about all their options. Advice to "See your doctor" does not constitute the practice of medicine. :)

Exactly what does that mean, and how can you demonstrate it is not the flimsiest of circular definitions or based on arbitrary assumptions? Webster's dictionary itself is circular on this matter, describing medication as a medicament or that used in the process of medicating; medicating is then defined as 'to treat medically.'

Doing a search on "medication" at wikipedia sends one to the page titled 'pharmaceutical drug' - that reflects one semantic construction which may or may not be useful, but which is certainly different from your view.

A better definition is "A drug, broadly speaking, is any chemical substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function." If we evolved to eat something and that food normalizes body function, while not eating it leads to abnormal function, then it cannot be considered a drug by this definition.

On the other hand, one could use a very different definition of a drug as "a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being." By this definition, every food is a drug! No one can deny that food prevents disease (most notably starvation related diseases like kwashikor, marasmus, and beri-beri), or that carrots and spinach and bilberry can improve some people's visual acuity.

>> Herbal remedies used to treat a health problem are by definition drugs.

By your definition, they are. But that is a value laden definition, an unquestioned axiom that you take for granted. It is not a statement of scientific fact.

One should ask how we make a distinction between maintaining/restoring health vs. treating a medical problem. If someone is sedentary, doesn't eat right, and blood pressure and cholesterol become elevated while health problems are encountered, does exercising and eating right fall under the monopoly control of medical practice? Or is it safe to say that simply returning to a right lifestyle will generally restore health as the body heals itself? There are important differences behind these two ways of thinking; those differences need to be addressed before your perspective can be accepted.

So which of these definitions do you like, or is there another that you prefer? Does the fact that bananas can lower blood pressure and reduce ACE/angiotensin activity make them a drug? What are the consequences of calling common foods drugs? Should I need a prescription to go on the DASH diet, or is it the modern diet of processed foods that is an deviation from the norm?

A drug is, as defined by the USDA as " ...(A)articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 403(r)(1)(B) and 403(r)(3) or sections 403(r)(1)(B) and 403(r)(5)(D), is made in accordance with the requirements of section 403(r) is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 403(r)(6) is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement."

Basically, a banana is a banana unless a person slaps a label on it saying it saying that it is "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals..."; then it is a drug... unless "...a food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 403(r)(6) is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement."

Another post bites the pedantic dust.

And this legal definition conflicts with some other attempts to define a medicine or drug in terms of "chemical components affecting biochemical processes" - as eric seems to propose, or chemicals that prevent or treat disease, as others propose defining a medicament.

"A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication."

Some people do not like to think of herbs/plant-derived substances as drugs. They consider drugs to be nasty products of Big Pharma, and herbs to be Nature's Natural Healing Bounty. That may be where the difficulty lies in this case.

Unfortunately, if one takes this view it has at least two detrimental consequences: herbs then tend not to be viewed as serious, effective medicines, and their capacity in some cases to cause harm is minimized or ignored.

The chemicals (anthocyanins) in hibiscus tea, if (as it seems) they lower blood pressure, constitute a drug. If the tea merely makes a pleasant drink without pharmacologic actions, one can regard it as a food.

This is not some idiosyncratic personal view. It's the universally accepted medical/scientific definition of a drug.

I agree with the idea that food is culturally created. I eat octopus, snails, opihi, and all sorts of things that other people would never, ever eat. I've never tried horse meat but hear it's sweet. Dog is another "food" that people don't eat in many countries. I'd like to try grasshoppers, I hear they are good. In Africa they eat flying ant and say they taste like peanut butter.

Eric's issue, from what I can tell, is with me saying that the tea is potentially used effectively to treat an imbalance without a triple blind test conducted in sterile environments and printed in triplicate. He thinks we are misleading people, who will listen to us to their demise.

I don't prefer discussing herbs like that and find it tiresome to keep coming back to the same demands for proof.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
drug (drg)
n.
1.
a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
3. Obsolete A chemical or dye.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So what's your point Eric? Every time we post a thread we have to say that you should check with your doctor and we aren't making any claims to benefits or dangers and if you aren't in perfect health don't try it and more research needs to be done.... and....

Maybe you can write up a short disclaimer that you can post to each link so we don't have to go through this again?

No, it isn't universally accepted. And it is so broad that it includes bananas and blueberries and spinach and every other food out there. Almost all foods can prevent disease and many can be used to treat it - for example, a lime a day is a specific treatment and preventive for the disease called scurvy. And the article I linked to above shows that bananas have effects in lowering blood pressure that compels them to classified as a drug.

That definition of a drug is just as conceptually sloppy as the false "synthetic-bad/natural-good" construct. It assumes that we normally consume a diet free of substances that can prevent or treat disease, and that most foods have no ability to affect the chemistry of the body. All of which is poorly reasoned and at variance with reality.

Opihi is a limpet. Eat them out of the shell raw, stick them on a bbq, toss with different things like onions, seaweed for a little poke, or salad.

Refusal to acknowledge that an "alternative" remedy is a drug (apart from the damaging implications mentioned earlier) is an example of the sort of exclusive thinking that limits acceptance of alt med in the scientific community.*

We also see this in the rejection of research studies that show that a particular remedy does not work ("I reject the need for double blind studies; your mainstream science cannot hope to measure my special brand of healing.") and espousal of things like homeopathy, belief in which requires rejection of experimental evidence, physics and common sense.

Nice try silversword, but the part you bolded under the definition of "drug" is one of the alternate meanings of the word, not one generally accepted in science or medicine. For instance, Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines drug as "1. any medicinal substance. 2. a narcotic. 3. to administer a drug to." You could bold the second definition and declare that the only things qualifying as drugs are narcotics, but you'd be wrong.

"So what's your point Eric? Every time we post a thread we have to say that you should check with your doctor and we aren't making any claims to benefits or dangers and if you aren't in perfect health don't try it and more research needs to be done"

No, obviously not. In most threads dealing with medicinal herbs I do not say that one must see a physician. This point tends to come up when someone thinks they may have a disease which has not been properly diagnosed (it's difficult and sometimes risky to treat something you don't have), or a serious and potentially life-threatening condition is involved (for instance, heart failure or hypertension). Self-treating with the herb du jour may be just dandy for minor ills, but failing to get professional advice before treating serious cardiovascular disease or cancer can kill you. You can always disregard the advice your doctor gives you (voice of W.C. Fields - "I've done it a thousand times";), but at least you'll have had treatment options presented and can make an educated choice about what to do.

As to "more research is needed", the scientific journals (not to mention the news media) are full of accounts of promising medicines and scientific breakthroughs, a huge number of which never pan out when more comprehensive and better-designed studies are done. You could strain a muscle leaping on all those bandwagons prematurely. It'd be a shame if hibiscus tea turned out to have only a short-term effect on elevated blood pressure, or a safety problem that was only detected after study subjects were looked at over a long enough period of time.

"...if you aren't in perfect health don't try it..."
If there's a health contraindication to using a certain herbal drug, you don't want to hear about it?

As far as disclaimers go, the supplement dealers have their dodge down pat. They'll make a set of claims about how their product shrinks your prostate, grows hair where you want it, leads to boundless energy etc., but if they're smart the fine print reads "Not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease".
Those of us posting in this forum (assuming we're not selling something) don't need to play footsie with the law. We can speak our minds openly.

Labeling common, widespread food ingredients like anthocyanins as a drug is silly. Having a definition of drug that is so vague and expansive that it includes virtually every food is not good science. What chemical substance prevents and treats dehydration? Water. Water must now be considered a drug!!

Do we have adequate scientific proof that water is safe for routine consumption? According to erics standards for other food ingredients, we do not. Yet people continue to self-administer this drug. While water ~appears~ to be reasonably effective in preventing or treating dehydration in the short run, we are not absolutely certain, and we don't have adequate double-blind studies on whether it is safe or if it loses effectiveness in the long term.

Eric, I very clearly posted exactly what you had linked to. I'm not "trying" anything. Please stop being so rude.

"Nutritional supplements are regulated differently from pharmaceuticals in the United States. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, substances that are "dietary supplements" or contain a "dietary ingredient" are considered safe and may be sold unless such supplement or ingredient is shown to present "a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury." Therefore, unlike drugs, supplements may be sold without prior approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

There are several types of claims. An authorized health claim is an "explicit or implied characterization of a relationship between a substance and a disease or a health-related condition." According to the FDA, a health claim "describes the effect a substance has on reducing the risk of or preventing a disease, e.g., 'calcium may reduce the risk of osteoporosis.'" This type of claim requires significant scientific agreement and must be authorized by FDA. The FDA maintains a list of authorized health claims here.

The supplemental herbal industry hardly has "...playing footsie with the law..." monopolized.

"Self-treating with the herb du jour may be just dandy for minor ills, but failing to get professional advice before treating serious cardiovascular disease or cancer can kill you."

No one is arguing that. We're discussing using herbs as medicine. Not encouraging people to self-treat serious disease or self-diagnose anything.

And once again, we aren't talking about hibiscus anymore.

If they're so common and widespread, what makes hibiscus tea special?

"Having a definition of drug that is so vague and expansive that it includes virtually every food is not good science."

Most of what we think of as food keeps bodily processes going and, over considerable time, subtly and gradually affects our overall health (too many calories and too much fat leading to obesity and atherosclerosis, for example). "Food" does not equal "drug".

Hibiscus tea, on the other hand, is touted as having a considerable and relatively rapid effect on blood pressure, to the point where it's being compared by some with standard antihypertensive medicines. If it acts like a drug and people are promoting its medicinal effects, it only makes sense that it's a drug and should be regarded as such. Label it as a food (however this might appeal to one's philosophy), and people will not give it the serious attention it deserves, ignore potential hazards etc.

There was an interesting example of semantic haggling over the definition of "drug" in the New York Times last Sunday. The President of Bolivia had an op-ed column in which he was appealing for an international consensus that coca leaf should not be regarded as a drug. You see, there's all that traditional chewing of coca leaves among the indigenous peoples, a harmless (according to the Pres. of Bolivia) and deeply cultural activity which should not be proscribed in the name of the drug war. I'm not certain he wanted to characterize coca leaf as food, but in any case not as a drug - despite the fact that what is swallowed/absorbed in the act of chewing coca leaves has considerable medicinal effect.
Maybe the Bolivian President has some agenda going here ("ignore all those coca trees in my country - we're not feeding the international cocaine habit, we're supporting indigenous cultural integrity"), but really, coca is still a drug, even if the raw form is less potent than, say, crack cocaine.

They're researching it. It's still in the process of being tested. Nothing has been confirmed. Kinda like green tea.

>>>>If they're so common and widespread, what makes hibiscus tea special?

Were you familiar with the research, you would know that anthocyanins in blueberry, pomegranate, purple sweet potato, indian corn, and many other foods have also been shown to lower blood pressure. In that regard, it is not unique. It does contain high levels of anthocyanins, they are highly soluble, it is inexpensive, and when dried, it has a longer shelf life than fresh fruits or vegetables containing anthocyanins.

If the liver is so great at doing it's job without any outside help, why do doctors write millions of prescriptions for HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors to stop the liver from making so much cholesterol?? Seems your platitude is at variance with the actions of the medical community.

>> Most of what we think of as food keeps bodily processes going and, over considerable time, subtly and gradually affects our overall health (too many calories and too much fat leading to obesity and atherosclerosis, for example). "Food" does not equal "drug".

Yes, wouldn't this slow change over time be the same as the 'long term safety' of hibiscus that you were raising FUD about?

Your right that excess is a factor. But the type of fat or carbohydrate also has an unquestionable effect - hence, we find various advice to change not only the amount of fat, but the type, advice to eat more complex carbs and fewer simple sugars.

And the changes are not always slow, even when the body has the ability to postpone catastrophic failure for years. People who take up smoking usually live for several decades, even though the damage starts immediately. Switching from a healthy diet to a diet of junk food can lead to measurable pathological changes in a matter of weeks, even if a heart attack or bowel cancer is years in the future.

Two completely different things. By studying a drug over an extended period of time, we may discover detrimental health effects that were not apparent in shorter-term use (alt med advocates like to cite Vioxx in this regard). There've been numerous drugs (including herbal drugs) that initially were thought to be without significant side effects (in the case of herbs, including some with historical use of hundreds or thousands of years), but when examined closely outside the realm of folklore and testimonials proved to have potential for serious harm (for example, comfrey and aristolochia).

"If the liver is so great at doing it's job without any outside help, why do doctors write millions of prescriptions for HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors to stop the liver from making so much cholesterol??"

The liver in people with generally good health does a fine job of eliminating toxins without the need for "flushes" or "cleanses", which is a major point I was making. The other point was that we can best help our livers out by limiting our exposure to toxic substances that may harm them (i.e. through limiting exposure to alcohol and to be careful about what drugs we take, pharmaceutical and herbal, which can be hepatotoxic).

You'd have to take a lot of comfrey to have harm as well, and comfrey supplements are not the same as fresh comfrey. I think that it is interesting that they say not to take comfrey and alcohol together because comfrey may cause liver damage...

As with anything ingested it's important to know why one is ingesting it and in what quantities it is safe. "potential for serious harm" is possible, but most drugs have that slapped on the label. It's a matter of choosing what is right for the individual.

I don't see it as completely different - it is identical. Eating certain kinds of fats can have detrimental health effects that are not apparent with short term use. Eating too much sugar can lead to detrimental effects in the same way. Getting a heart attack from vioxx or poor diet is still getting a heart attack. What is outrageous about vioxx is that the manufacturer concealed information showing the risks, while they continued to sell the product at a high price.

>> The liver in people with generally good health does a fine job of eliminating toxins without the need for "flushes" or "cleanses", which is a major point I was making.

You are asserting a claim, but haven't proved it in any sense. Today, someone may be told to change their diet or take something to change their lithogenic index AFTER they develop kidney stones or gall stones. Before that, they are considered healthy. This way of thinking is like suggesting that a person should only consider changing their diet or take statins after a heart attack because the person is healthy until they have a coronary episode.

This same phenomenon can be seen with hibiscus and the kidneys. Even though you assert that the kidneys of healthy people can be assumed to do a good job and don't need any consideration, that can't be proven to be true, while there is evidence it is false.

We know that kidney stones typically form after years of having concentrated urine which encourages crystals to form. We know that many "kidney flushing" herbs "thin the urine" (decrease the concentration of crystal forming substances). We know that these herbs can prevent or help reverse existing stones. Therefore, the periodic use of kidney flushing herbs in healthy should be a valid topic, not dismissed as unscientific mumbo-jumbo.

Unfortunately, this is actually one of the tame ones. Some of the more contentious postings have actually been removed by the moderators. Things tend to get rather heated in this forum.

This is a good point which often gets overlooked in the promotion of certain "wonder" foods.

There are anthocyanin/polyphenol compounds in a wide range of fruits and vegetables (including pomegranate juice, which I drink on a near daily basis) which are thought to have beneficial effects on heart and vascular function, possibly including reduction of stroke and heart attack risk, and decreasing hypertension. If we eat a sensible diet containing lots of plants, limit calories and get exercise, it'll do much more good than continuing in old, poor habits and relying on one particular supplement (like hibiscus tea) to rescue us.

Regarding "contentious" threads, disagreement is healthy (when overt personal attacks are omitted) and debate is educational. Sometimes it's tempting to accept an attractive claim at face value, but often there's more going on that changes the picture when we learn about it.

I agree, that on a general level, prevention is favored by variety. But when there are indications of an issue (elevated blood pressure), or a specific concern (such as family history of a particular condition) then that general goal may need to be supplemented with specific, measurable actions. This is where a daily glass of pomegranate juice, or 3 cups of hibiscus tea per day, or some like measure becomes worthwhile.

I'm surprised by you!

Disagreement may be healthy, but I don't understand why you have a problem with hypertensives testing the efficacy of a benign tea which is readily available in most grocery stores.

It's preferable in my opinion to consume a wide variety of fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy, limited calorie diet, rather than depending on an herbal drug that, while it supposedly markedly reduces blood pressure, has not been tested in a large clinical trial for efficacy and long-term safety (the study linked to at the beginning of this thread is of poor quality and is unclear on whether most of the patients in the study even qualified as being hypertensive).

Something else to consider - a major source of Hibiscus sabdariffa tea (and one supposedly of extra quality) is the Sudan, a country which the U.S. is economically boycotting because of the regime's horrific brutality. Some of that tea is still reaching the U.S. because other countries permit its importation (i.e. Germany) and it gets relabeled and brought into our country.

I'd be extra careful to avoid supporting the Sudanese dictatorship.

In thinking about the line between foods and drugs, and how to properly classify them as medicinals; what about unhealthy food? If chemical compounds in food effect the body in*any* way, is that considered a drug, too, even if negative? I see the differing definition of drugs as said well above, and medicinal implies to the good of the effect on the body .

But, if we have to prove the claims of foods that have a beneficial effect in daily use as drugs, would that definition then extend to having whatever is sold as Food then chemically analysed and proven as proper food?

This is a question that popped up in my mind reading this thread, and I probably haven't given it best voice, but, I've never seen it discussed in the context that this thread has tread into. I'd be interested to hear your input.

We already have this, as in the case of trans fats and other components that are analyzed and listed in detail on food packaging. But that doesn't mean that such foods are drugs, just that they are deemed to influence health in various ways depending on overall diet.

Taking an herbal preparation with the goal of significantly altering one's blood pressure seems different to me than eating a doughnut, which is going to have a negligible effect on overall health.

What about fish and fish oil lowering triglycerides? Do you feel a need to call these drugs? Or will you merely choose to be inconsistent with your own ideas of what a drug is??

Epidemiologic and clinical trials demonstrated that omega-3 fatty acids have the potential to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD); one of the mechanisms by which this effect is achieved is through reducing plasma triglyceride levels. There is strong scientific evidence from human trials that omega-3 fatty acids from either fish or fish oil
supplements significantly reduce blood triglyceride levels and these benefits appear to be dose-dependent.

If there is evidence that eating chocolate improves heart health, does that make my Hershey's Dark Chocolate Bar a drug? What about the simple strategy of switching from corn oil to olive olive - is olive oil another 'drug' if there are measurable benefits to consuming it compared to other forms of oils??

As you may have missed this in an earlier post of mine, I'll repeat the standard definition of a drug and its implications here:

""A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication."

Some people do not like to think of herbs/plant-derived substances as drugs. They consider drugs to be nasty products of Big Pharma, and herbs to be Nature's Natural Healing Bounty. That may be where the difficulty lies in this case.

Unfortunately, if one takes this view it has at least two detrimental consequences: herbs then tend not to be viewed as serious, effective medicines, and their capacity in some cases to cause harm is minimized or ignored."

I do regard herbal drugs as serious medicine, assuming they're not completely ineffective as well as completely innocuous.

>> "A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication."

Foods can prevent many diseases, therefore - by your perspective, must be drugs. And foods can treat disease, as the information on fish oil above (and hibiscus, sesame oil, olive oil, and many, many other foods that have been shown to favorably modify the course of disease) --- and again, these foods must be considered drugs.

What are the consequences of such a definition, when each year, new research will push more 'foods' into the 'drug' category?? What happens when almost everything we eat must called a drug? Such a broad definition of the word drug makes the definition worthless.

*as part of a healthy low-cholesterol diet

It's clear what the issue is here.

If you're going to make a specific health claim for your product (i.e. "clinically proven" to "lower cholesterol 4%") of the sort associated with drugs, you have to provide a correspondingly strong evidentiary basis.

The bar is set far lower for dietary supplements.

It would take some complex gyrations for General Mills to argue that Cheerios are a dietary supplement, so look for them to agree to water down their claims to match the available evidence.

It's really a silly bureaucratic game of pretend - we know that a lime a day will prevent or treat scurvy, which is a disease. We know it therefore must be called a drug if we agree on a certain definition of what a drug is. But the government is willing to pretend that their definition of a "drug" doesn't apply to foods if the growers, manufacturers, or sellers don't remind people that it is a "drug" or make specific claims.

So what's the point here? If it's that the Big Bad Government is trying to suppress the concept of better health through nutrition, that's certainly not the case.

Part of the problem is that specific formulations of grains and other foods may not have the same effect as other ones that were the subject of research. If a supplement company were to promote its brand of hibiscus tea by saying that (for example) "Floral Goodness Tea Improves Hypertension 20%!" it would risk the same type of FDA enforcement action. Even overlooking the issues of whether such a product could have a long-term effect on hypertension and is safe to use, we wouldn't know if that particular company's hibiscus tea contains enough active ingredients to have an effect.

So the real problem is that companies like to "pretend" that their products have health benefits, without doing the necessary work to prove it. And the FDA's problem is that it is too underfunded and overstretched to deal with these claims in a timely fashion. It took a couple of years or so for them to get around to notifying General Mills, and that kind of delay is not unusual when smaller supplement companies step out of line. The difference in this instance is that General Mills is an established outfit with a reputation to uphold and doesn't want to antagonize the FDA. A small supplement seller might ignore the warning letter and string out matters as long as possible before dropping the product or maybe ceasing operations entirely once it's made its profits, and resuming business under another name.

Besides, what's with defending consumption of cereals on health grounds? I thought they were supposed to lead to dreaded "acidosis", the source of all diseases. :)

Right - that describes the regulatory system today. But whether or not a claim is made, the lime still prevents and reverses scurvy, while hibiscus tea still inhibits the angiotensin system and acts as a diuretic. The current position of the regulators is that it is better to have most consumers ignorant of possible biological effects than risk the possibility that a merchant hypes a product. So merchants are gagged.

If someone happens to like hibiscus tea and drinks it daily, and that controls what would otherwise be hypertension, it is not a drug, because they don't know about the condition, and are (by definition) not 'medicating' ... if the same person stops drinking hibiscus tea for a while, blood pressure elevates and is diagnosed, and they see a claim on a box saying that hibiscus lowers blood pressure, suddenly, the legal beagles and their linguistics pronounce hibiscus to be a drug and the person is medicating. The biological facts about hibiscus and its effects didn't change at all - but the regulatory perspective changed dramatically. Which of course is very unscientific.

>> Besides, what's with defending consumption of cereals on health grounds? I thought they were supposed to lead to dreaded "acidosis", the source of all diseases. :)

Troll.

No, they're just prohibited from making unsubstantiated claims for poorly regulated products. Which doesn't stop them from wiggling through the loophole provided by DSHEA and talking about how they "promote ___ health".

My concerns are more for consumers than the poor "gagged" merchants.

Sorry you don't like my bringing up the subject of "acid pH" in regard to consuming grains, but you mentioned this in the discussion on "alkaline water". If one is going to eat enough Cheerios to make a meaningful dent in cholesterol levels (this site sheds a little light on that question), how's that going to affect one's "acid food" intake? Not that I buy the claim that "acid foods" alter body pH or pose dread health risks, but surely those who advocate both grain intake and "alkaline diet" have noticed that this advice is rather contradictory.

But I think you realize that, or you wouldn't have resorted to name-calling again.

"The term (troll) is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent."

Cite.

Given the fact that you consistently distorted the discussion in that thread, troll is a fair term.

It is true that eating large amounts of grain can increase the metabolic acid load, but it is a question of balance. If fruits and vegetables are consumed in large quantities (as is generally recommended, but rarely practiced), then the net acidity of a diet need not be high, even if oats or other grains are consumed.

Further, the substance that is largely responsible for lowering cholesterol when eating oats is soluble fiber - this adsorbs cholesterol in the gut and reduce the tendency for it to be reabsorbed into the body. Oats are not the only source of such soluble fiber - it can also be found in a variety of foods.

Several types of soluble fiber, including psyllium, beta-glucan, pectin, and guar gum, have been shown to decrease LDL-C in well-controlled intervention studies, whereas the soluble fiber content of legumes and vegetables has also been shown to decrease LDL-C. (source.)

At risk of having apples declared a drug, I will point out that they are high in pectin, and have been shown to improve cholesterol levels in the blood.
An apple a day ...

Here's a good summary on WebMD on why the FDA has taken action regarding Cheerios. Part of the reason for the warning letter is claims made on the company's website.

"The FDA also takes issue with a General Mills' web site mentioned on the Cheerios label that uses language that doesn't comply with approved health claims.

For instance, the approved health claim about heart disease is supposed to mention fiber, fruits, vegetables, and a low-fat diet -- not just whole-grain foods. And the FDA warned General Mills about another statement on that same web site that linked whole grains, as part of a low-fat diet, to reduced risk of stomach and colon cancers. That's not an approved health claim."

What's been overlooked here in the rush to condemn the FDA is that the agency often is targeted by alt med advocates as picking on supplement sellers and ignoring large corporate malfeasance. The company that makes Cheerios certainly qualifies as a major corporation.

apollog: Do try to avoid ad hominems in your posts - if you define everyone who effectively counters your claims as a "troll", your world soon will become overpopulated with "trolls". :)

The problem here is that you are manufacturing 'problems' simply because things don't fit with your world view. The Cheerios claims were limited to cholesterol - people that believe there are other nutritional concerns like net acidity, PRAL or NAE will have to address those separately. The claim was specific to cholesterol and is backed by a large body of scientific research. Furthermore, there is plenty of research on the DASH diet (which is low on net acidity, which includes whole grains, and includes lots of fruits/veggies), and the DASH diet is associated with lower blood cholesterol, less atherosclerosis, and lower rates of heart failure (in addition to reducing blood pressure). So your 'problem' is mostly in your head.

As General Mills noted in the article you cited, "Cheerios' soluble fiber health claim has been FDA-approved for 12 years, and Cheerios' 'lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks' message has been featured on the box for more than two years. The science is not in question." What is in question is whether General Mills failed to play "Mother, may I?" with the FDA in the way that the FDA expects.

>> Do try to avoid ad hominems in your posts - if you define everyone who effectively counters your claims as a "troll", your world soon will become overpopulated with "trolls". :)

Thanks for the (worthless) advice ... I usually reserve that term for people that do things like intentionally distort what I say ... most people who read this forum know exactly what I mean.

Regarding Hibiscus, the actual purpose of this thread, what is the scientific name? (It may be in this thread, buried under all the verbiage.)

I am wondering if it includes Althea, and such things as Disco Belle...ie, things I already grow. Is it just the flowers that are used?

As to apollog's feeling compelled to indulge in name-calling because I "distort" discussion in threads, the history of our interactions is marked by his misquoting and mischaracterizing what I've said. The discussion on "alkaline water" in particular features the usual apollogian tactics of going off into tangents, failing to address the multiple expert opinions I cite (pretending that I alone hold such opinions) and above all, volleying insults. Somehow I manage to handle these distortions of debate calmly without indulging in personal attacks. I am able to do this because I have evidence on my side and don't need to distract people by assaulting the character of those with whom I disagree.

"Ad hominem abusive:
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.

Examples:

"You can't believe Jack when he says God exists because he doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane Jones's proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Employing fallacious tactics like ad hominems and strawmen (creating arguments your opponent has not made which are easier to tear down than what he actually said) are excellent evidence of how barren one's position really is.

Amen.

Since the first study I linked to has been called poor repeatedly I have attached another.

Source

Chen, C. et al. "Inhibitory Effects of Hibiscus Sabdariffa L Extract on Low-Density Lipoprotein Oxidation and Anti-Hyperlipidemia in Fructose-Fed and Cholesterol-Fed Rats." Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. Published online Sept. 15, 2004 and will be published in the print journal later.