|
?:reviewBody
|
-
On 20 March 2016, the disreputable alternative health web site Natural News published an article claiming the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had just outlawed cannabidiol (CBD) oils by claiming that all plant molecules now belong exclusively to Big Pharma: Although the article was later substantially edited, its original version was republished verbatim to alternative news blog The Event Chronicle on 21 March 2016. The original article, which was credited to Natural News' Health Ranger Mike Adams, stated: The relationship between digital articles and social media is such that a large share of the reading audience is exposed only to the headline of any given article and not its full text. One estimate from 2014 suggested that as many as four in ten people only read an item's title, a figure which could be far higher when multiplied by Facebook. Thus, Adams' claims led many to infer that the FDA had indeed issued an immediate, sweeping ban on CBDs (a product popular among chronic pain sufferers). The original article contained several links that readers might have presumed corroborated its claims. The first relevant link was to a 19 February 2016 article which in no way indicated that the FDA had banned CBDs; it simply reported on warning letters sent by the FDA to CBD oil manufacturers with respect to impermissible label claims: The next link pointed to a nearly month-old article published by the Cannabusiness web site on 22 February 2016. Cannabusiness' coverage appeared to describe CBDs labeled and marketed in a manner that violated FDA labeling regulations: Cannabusiness linked to a 16 February 2016 article published by legal blog Above The Law, which concisely explained why the FDA was sending letters to CBD oil vendors: Notably, the FDA in no way issued a ban of any description on the sale of CBD oils. Rather, the agency stepped in to warn several manufacturers that their products could not be marketed or labeled as intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease without further FDA oversight. And as it happens, section 201(g)(1)(B) of the FDC Act pertains to the labeling of products under its governance: Warning letters dated 4 February 2016 were published by the FDA to their web site, and the manner in which the agency alleged the CBD manufacturers were in violation of the FDC Act (i.e., marketing their products as dietary supplements) was clearly described: Several examples of such labeling or marketing were included in the letters, many of which clearly appeared to violate the cited regulations: The FDA concluded by ordering the companies to rectify their labeling and marketing practices (not by mandating that the products be withdrawn from the market): In summation, the FDA's warning involved how the products were marketed and labeled (as drugs intended to cure, prevent, or treat a medical condition), and not the legality of the products themselves. At some point between 20 March 2016 and 23 March 2016, Natural News significantly edited the original article, with Adams disingenuously maintaining that his use of the rather unambiguous term outlawed had been misconstrued by readers to mean that the products in question had been outlawed: Despite lengthy edits, the article remained factually inaccurate, claiming that the FDA asserted CBD oils were adulterated products: Another commonly reproduced bit of verbiage held (without substantiation) that the impetus behind the FDA actions was a drug company's interest in CBDs: While the FDA did send letters to CBD oil manufacturers in February 2016, the letters addressed marketing and labeling claims that violated the FDC Act. In the letters, the FDA simply required that CBD oil manufacturers cease cited labeling and marketing practices, but didn't outlaw the products nor demand the vendors withdraw their oils from the market. The wildly inaccurate representation wasn't out of line with the untrustworthy content practices associated with Natural News. Prior articles published on that site asserted that welfare recipients would be forced to receive RFID chip implants, that Chipotle's foodborne illness outbreaks were the work of pro-GMO bioterrorists, that doctors were responsible for more deaths than guns in America, that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a warning urging Americans not to get the flu shot, that a Johns Hopkins scientist blew the lid off the hidden risks of influenza vaccination, and (perhaps most bizarrely) that the government was engaged in a program to utilize aerosolized thought control vaccines on the population. All but two of these claims were advanced by Health Ranger Mike Adams.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}