Every month the FDA sends out warning letters to make certain companies aware of violations. Nine letters have been sent out this month alone, to companies all over the country. Many of these letters informed companies that their products are “misbranded” or “unapproved.”

Believe it or not, these letters are actually really important to everyone. If you’re interested in what you’re putting on or into the bodies of yourself and your loved ones, you may want to start checking them out.

These letters highlight specific aspects of FDA law when they are violated. It’s good for consumers because it allows us to be aware of frequently violated sections. With each newly publicized FDA warning there are many things to be learned.

Take, for example, the recent Zicam controversy. Many people claimed to be losing their sense of smell from using Zicam. The FDA gently reminded people that homeopathic drugs aren’t necessarily regulated. What we learned from that is to do our research before taking anything.

By just taking the time to skim any of these letters, you may be surprised at how much you’ll learn. Let’s take a look at the most recent warning letter was sent out on Tuesday to American Cellular Laboratories, Inc. in Pacifica, Calif. (You can check out the actual letter here.) The subject is dietary supplements that have been “misbranded.”

The gist of the letter was this:
- your products are labeled and advertised as something that they’re not
- your steroids are not dietary supplements
- if you say something is a dietary supplement it MUST meet the actual definition of a dietary supplement
– According to the FDA’s Cosmetic Act, a product claiming to be a dietary supplement must have at least one dietary ingredient like a vitamin, mineral, amino acid or any ingredient of the other categories.
- your products are “new drugs” that aren’t generally recognized as safe and effective
- your products are prescription drugs because they have a potentially toxic or harmful effect and must be taken under direct supervision of someone director
- the products’ directions are inadequate

You can stay up-to-date on all of the FDA’s recent warning letters by checking its Web site. Who knows? You may even learn something.

The first of the two studies took place over the course of eight years, taking more than 20,000 beer drinkers and their beer-boasting habits into review. The results: although heavy drinkers were shown to put on some weight, it wasn’t necessarily on, around, or even near the belly.

It was those who drank more than 33 ounces, or two-and-a-half bottles, per day, that packed on the most pounds.

This study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition and reported by Fox News in a recent article.

The second study found that moderate drinkers are wealthier, more educated and less likely to be disabled than those who choose a fixed seat on the wagon, which would also relate to all those studies published about how alcohol has been shown to increase life expectancy.

According to Dr. Sei J. Lee of San Francisco VA Medical Center and his colleagues, one drink a day halved a person’s risk of dying over the next four years, as reported by Fox News. Even after taking into account several factors that could influence alcohol use and mortality, the effect was weakened, but moderate drinkers were still 28 percent less likely to die than non-drinkers.

Believe it or not, the very first study to demonstrate this information was published more than 70 years ago, back in 1923. I guess that makes sense, taking into consideration that whole Prohibition bit….

What is still uncertain, however, is whether moderate drinkers (and I have to stress MODERATE here, that doesn’t include Mr. “I can drink a case of Bud and be fine” Dude) are healthier, overall, than non-drinkers.

I personally think it has something to do with the fact that moderate drinkers may just be overall less stressed than non-drinkers. Alcohol is a depressant, and drinking it in social situations lowers people’s inhibitions and allows many to relax and enjoy themselves more. If one never takes it too far, I think a life a little more relaxed would be better than one a little more stressed. Not to mention, stress is one of the biggest causes of death in the United States. It helps skyrocket cholesterol and blood pressure, and even aids in increasing weight because of its relation to cortisol production in the body.

And as far as the moderate drinkers likely to have more money and more education, that study took into account functional disability and socioeconomic status.

Going back to Lee and his colleagues, they discovered that people who downed one drink a day had a significantly higher socioeconomic status than non-drinkers, as measured by income, wealth and years of education. As an example, 37 percent of drinkers had a college education, compared to 14 percent of non-drinkers, and 52 percent of drinkers had $300,000 in assets, while 21 percent of non-drinkers did.

They also found that non-drinkers also were more likely to have functional disabilities, such as difficulties in completing self-care activities like getting dressed or going to the bathroom, as well as problems with more complex activities such as making meals or managing their finances.

(This all goes back to what I touched on earlier…more relaxed and stress-free means less likely to develop problems. It’s all psychological.)

All this new information makes happy hour sound even, well, happier. Now, if I can only make it ’til 5:00….

According to Fox News, the state’s Public Health Council will vote on Wednesday whether to make fast-food chains list the calorie counts of their menu items on their menus or menu boards.

Many expect these regulations to be more comprehensive than the ones California took on last September when it became the first U.S. state with menu labeling rules for fast-food chains like McDonald’s and Yum Brands’ KFC.

These rules may be coming at just the right time. Obesity has only grown in the U.S. in recent years. Regulations designed with intentions of allowing people to make better-informed decisions about the foods they eat could only provide benefits to the country at large.

In Massachusetts alone, more than half of the adults are overweight or obese, as reported by a 2008 state report that also showed adult obesity had doubled in 20 years.

New York also added a restaurant calorie information rule last year. Now more than a dozen states are considering similar provisions.

Unlike the California regulations, Massachusetts will include items at restaurant drive-through windows, where about 65 percent of fast food is purchased, according to ValueTheMeal.org, which has the most up to date draft of the rules.

Another difference between the two states and their menu regulations is that Massachusetts will not override rules in cities that impose stricter labeling rules at fast-food restaurants. In California, as an example, menu labeling rules passed in San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties were dubbed null and void by the state law.

But what about the rights of the restaurants and their owners? Indeed, some restaurant companies have objected to additional government regulations. In New York City, Fox News pointed out, some have fought against the menu labeling rules with lawsuits. Other chains instead support what is known as the “Lean Act,” which would require restaurants and grocery stores that serve prepared food to post calorie counts on menus, menu boards or in other similar ways.

This proposed legislation sounds great, right? But what if the restaurants or grocery stores put that information on the back of a menu or in some place that people wouldn’t normally look? Information like that is easily hidden. With more and more people dining out these days, it’s important that this information is easily accessible and easily visible to consumers.

With obesity in this country busting with our growing pant sizes, a real obesity epidemic, regulations like those imposed in California and those about to be released in Massachusetts could certainly help us cut calories. It’s one thing not knowing about what that Quarter Pounder with cheese really has in it before you discover it’s actually 510 calories, 210 of those from fat, 1.5 grams of trans fat… Certainly, that would deter most people, and that’s not even considering the often accompanying regular French fry at 380 calories or the medium Coke at 210 calories. (This is all thanks to the nutrition facts McDonald’s has made available online. Not a very happy place for those Mickey Dee’s lovers out there.)

The only other point I have to add is that, sadly, the combination of rising food prices and a crumbling U.S. economy doesn’t help the fact that most fast food, such as with McDonald’s Dollar Menu, and most unhealthy food in general, is often the cheapest food to purchase. It could be argued that many families, with the current situation, are forced into eating unhealthy food choices like fast food items.