|
?:reviewBody
|
-
In June 2016 an image macro became newly popular (likely due to a concurrent cancer conspiracy rumor) on social media, holding that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States since 1995 because it contains high levels of the cancer-fighting vitamin B17 (also known as Laetrile): The claim was an old and deceptively multi-layered one, asserting that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States, that the ban was enacted in a particular year (1995), that the banned substance contained levels of Vitamin B17 sufficient to prevent and treat cancer, and that the unspecified powers that be explicitly and unquestionably banned the plant solely because it could save people's lives by fighting cancer. First at issue is whether bitter almond trees have been banned in the U.S. (by the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency) since 1995. We found no evidence corroborating that claim outside its widespread repetition. A 2002 Los Angeles Times item referenced that rumor and concluded by stating that the FDA had only prohibited the marketing of bitter almond products for unrestricted use: That article also noted that California's Department of Health Services (not a federal agency) regulates the cultivation and sale of bitter almonds within the state, and that both are allowed (with some caveats): In fact, the rumor that bitter almond trees have been banned (rather than any actual governmental ban on them) appears to be more of a hindrance to the growth and availability of them than any real legal prohibition does: That interest in bitter almonds is centered in California is unsurprising, as 82% of all almonds consumed around the world are grown in this state. We contacted the Almond Board of California for clarification about the ostensibly murky status of bitter almond trees, and that agricultural trade group affirmed that bitter almond trees continue to grow in the state of California (albeit largely ornamentally rather than commercially): What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had banned bitter almond trees expressly because they contain an [anti-cancer compound] cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies, and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power cancer industry suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to outlaw vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}