Just a thought on the glacial pace of FDA acceptance.
If the FDA is fundamentally a political organization with a semi-technical mission, then the motivation of decision makers may be very different than those of biologists, clinicians, or professors.
Perhaps if the FDA were confronted with the notion that since it has been proven that Vitamin D is actually not a vitamin at all, but rather a pico-affective sterol hormone, then they are writing a new class of perscriptions. Consequently, in the light of such widely accepted understanding, the addition of "Vitamin D" to new food categories is tantamount to prescribing hormone therapy, which would portend significant liabilities and political blowback to those who made the wrong decisions. Perhaps someone needs to point out that warning labels for children and pregnant women should be included on the packaging.
Maybe a different communication approach could help people make the right decision for the public as well as themselves. It is sometimes easier to get politicians to do nothing than risk being wrong. Doing the right thing, now that really takes work.
Hope this notion may be of help. Keep up your excellent research.
Last edited on Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 21:00 by Patrick M