The Complete Patient

The response of Dr. Stephen Barrett of Casewatch (quoted in immediately previous segment) didn't sit well with John King of King Orchards, a 300-acre family cherry farm in Traverse City, MI. Barrett's advice--essentially, suck it up and don't discuss the health benefits of tart cherries--prompted a lengthy rebuttal on the King Orchards web site.

King points out to Barriett that both he and the FDA would be hard pressed to demonstrate any danger to the public from highlighting the health benefits of tart cherries because "it would not be possible to prove that cherries are dangerous, nor would it be possible to negate or dismiss the body of decades of research upon which the statements of potential health benefits of tart cherries rests." King goes on to provide a compelling argument not only for the health claims of tart cherries, but for the importance of family farming to the culture and economy of modern-day America. He also takes on Barrett's condescending attitude by stating that the notion that "the FDA or the pharmaceutical corporations are the only authorities on this subject, as contrasted with the growers who are presumed to be hayseeds trying to turn a quick buck by questionable means, is wholly false and rests on complete ignorance of the subject."

King's conclusion distills the entire matter: "...we should keep in mind lemons were curing scurvy 150 years before we could 'prove' that they could. Had that been discovered today, the FDA would be forcing lemon growers to remain silent about that if the same rationale were used that was applied to tart cherry growers." Check it out--it's a great read.

How wide is the ideological chasm between backers of the existing medical establishment and of complementary health approaches? Still fairly wide, based on some responses to my latest BusinessWeek.com column questioning the FDA's decision to threaten cherry farmers with the full wrath of the federal government for claiming that tart cherries may help counter certain health conditions.

Dr. Stephen Barrett, one of the operators of Casewatch.com, which monitors "health fraud and quackery-related legal matters," wrote me, "I have no sympathy for the 'dilemma' of cherry sellers who got the warnings. The proper (and legal) thing to do is to stop making health claims. Period. Cherries taste good and contain some useful nutrients. They should say that and stop trying to boost sales by suggesting special health benefits when there are none." When I challenged him, and also invited him to post comments to my column at BusinessWeek.com, he reiterated his lack of sympathy for the cherry growers, adding, "I believe that many of them should be criminally prosecuted rather than just warned."

Contrast Barrett's reaction with that of Pat Sullivan, president of Jigsaw Health, a high-quality online seller of nutritional supplements, who on his blog writes of my column, "The scary thing is that the FDA could shut all these cherry growers down if they wanted to do so.  No due process is needed.  Pretty scary isn't it.  The FDA helped put out drugs like Vioxx which KILLED somewhere between 25,000 and 100,000 people.  Now they have time to threaten cherry growers with lawsuits?  How many people died from eating cherries?"

So there it is: lock 'em up, or treat them with respect for healing people.

My latest column on BusinessWeek.com reports on how the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  come down on small cherry farmers and distributors for claiming that tart cherries can improve your health. I still can't figure out why the FDA decided to pick on cherry farmers, who tend to be law-abiding Americans, when major corporations like Kellogg's and Welch's make major health claims for their products.

One FDA legal expert I spoke with in reporting the column told me his suspicion: because tart cherries really do help improve conditions like arthritis and gout, Big Pharma convinced the agency to go after the farmers, to protect sales of drugs targeted at these conditions. I had no evidence to confirm this, so didn't mention anything about it in the column. But then I read an article in today's New York Times summarizing an inquiry by Rep. Henry Waxman of California into the FDA's enforcement activities, and note that the FDA receives about $380 million a year in fees from pharmaceutical companies...and I began to wonder if perhaps there is something to his claim.

Another thing that strikes me about Rep. Waxman's inquiry is his finding that the number of warning letters issued by the FDA to food producers, drug companies, device makers, and others, declined by more than half since 2000. While Rep. Waxman is worried about quantity, I worry about quality. The 29 warning letters sent out to the cherry farmers and distributors last year was a big ado about very little, in my estimation. This is our protector of the food chain?

I've been doing a lot of research involving the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the last few weeks, in connection with my upcoming column at BusinessWeek.com next Tuesday. I've been struck by a striking similarity between the FDA and the California Medical Board, which I've written about in connection with the medical malpractice claims of Roberto Glaubach regarding the death of his daughter, Veronica, following childbirth. That similarity: arrogance.

I don't want to describe details of my upcoming BusinessWeek.com column, but suffice it to say the FDA possesses near-dictatorial powers over food and drug companies--and isn't reticent about using those powers against law-abiding businesses that lack the resources to fight back. See if you agree. As I said, the column will appear beginning this Tuesday at www.businessweek.com, click on Small Biz along the top.

I enjoy Father's Day, receiving nice cards and gifts from my wife and children. What's not to like?

On this Father's Day, I find myself also thinking about the Boston Prostate Cancer Walk, which is held every year on Father's Day, and which I never participate in, even though I'm a surivor of prostate cancer. Why don't I want to be involved in such an event, given my personal experience and the fact that I known many men who have had prostate cancer (including some who have died from the disease)?

I've had difficulty articulating my standoffishness. It isn't that I don't want to discuss my experiences, since I've done that at some length, both in writing and in counseling men who have been diagnosed with the disease.  No, I believe the problem has to do with uncertainties I feel about the medical establishment. Its orientation seems to be to find a magic bullet that will cure this disease. At least that is what I think it is. The truth is, I don't know exactly what the money that is raised is used for. I just assume it's used to find some chemical compounds that will do the trick.

This isn't just a problem I have concerning prostate cancer. It applies to all the diseases I get calls and letters to support--heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, breast cancer, etc., etc. I heard something today on PBS (can't find the program to link to), saying that we now have more than 200 diseases the government sanctions official months, weeks, or days (as in "Diabetes Awareness Month").

I guess I'd like to know more about how the research money raised on behalf of these diseases is spent. If it's mostly spent to give Big Pharma additional patents, well, then I'm less than enthusiastic. But if I knew it were spent on educational programs to encourage prevention of these diseases, I might feel a lot more strongly in favor. Anyone have some answers?