When do foods become drugs?

[Les Mains]

Not sure if this ought to live in healthy eating...? Benecol, a novel fat, claims to reduce cholesterol provide you use enough of it...they tell you that you need to eat a certain amount and that they have carried out clinical trials. Does that make Benecol a drug? Is it, should it be, available on the NHS? After all, statins are. Is it a licensed medicine? Puzzling.

[Wokman Profile Website]

Define drugs.........

there have been many claims saying that a certain foods or derivitives can do this that or the other.

When you say " They say", who are they, do they have anything to do with the NHS?
How do they back up this evidence?

[hungryhousewife Profile]

HHmmmmm!! Thought provoking!! Chocolate could be classed as a drug. Apparently it mimicks the feelings and biochemical reactions to being in love! Similarly coffee - stimulates the adrenal glands - giving us a bit more vava-voom in the mornings!
This might turn into an interesting thread!!
HH

[Les Mains]

Define drugs.........

there have been many claims saying that a certain foods or derivitives can do this that or the other.

When you say " They say", who are they, do they have anything to do with the NHS?
How do they back up this evidence?

http://www.benecol.co.uk

* a daily intake of 1.5-2.4 g plant stanols lowers cholesterol by 7 to 10% in 2 to 3 weeks

And from the Oxford Dictionary online....

DRUG:

noun

a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body:

So, if Benecol's claim is true, Oxford Dictionary would say that it is a drug, by definition.

[Gillthepainter Profile Website]

Benecol isn't a drug. It's a food source making claims based on conclusions made on Plant Stanol Esters from what I can see in the link.
It says these stanols are found in rye corn and other food sources, so presumably you don't need to buy Benecol to get it.

Having said that, although my cholesterol is extremely low, I have no problem partaking in these sorts of products.
A little change does make a difference.

Eat a bowl of peas for a week and your cholesterol will drop, but peas aren't a drug.

I'd think the demon booze was the most obvious form of food becoming a drug.

[Suelle Profile Website]

I think there's a grey area between easily available foods, processed and marketed for their health benefits, and what we commonly think of as drugs - products, sometimes natural, sometimes manufactured, which have been tested for safety before being licensed for use as medicines.

Drug testing is more rigorous than testing for Food Safety Standards, although, as we all know, it's not infallible. It takes about 10 years for a new 'drug' product to reach the market after extensive testing to make sure the benefits outweigh the risks, and that as many side effects as possible are found. There are instructions with drugs to make sure they are not taken in circumstances where they might be harmful - such as with other drugs or in certain groups of patients.

Food products with medicinal claims aren't as powerful as produts sold as medicines, so are unlikely to have harmful effects even if taken in excess. The manufacturers just have to make sure that they are safe for human consumption in line with Food Safety Standards, and that the health claims can be substantiated. This is why things like Benecol say they 'can' or 'may' have certain benefits - not that they 'will'.

Herbal medicine is an area which I think should be more regulated - people do take these supplements and remedies as if they were medicines, but without adequate knowledge of things like bad interactions and side effects.

Alongside all this there are huge areas that haven't been properly explored by scientists. We regularly read articles in the newspapers about coffee or chocolate or whatever being good for us one week and bad the next - this is because scientists are looking at different chemicals within these foods, and examining their effects on our health. Vitamins, minerals and natural chemicals in foods become even more important as scientists study diseases and why some people are affected and not others.

[Les Mains]

So what about sweeteners? I well remember the hoo hah about cyclamate sweeteners. Over this weekend I was told by one relative that his son had "researched" aspartame (he'd been reading an Internet forum) and found that "it is clearly the cause of all his health issues." Boy, he has those and they stem from being morbidly obese as far as I can see.

It seems to me that one obvious difference is that sweeteners are only intended to sweeten, i.e. to alter the taste of a food (or medicine or anything else ingested) -- anything else is unintended -- whereas Benecol is intended to reduce by chemical means the amount of cholesterol the liver produces.

With Benecol, might you not just as well use statins in butter, and get the same medical effect and a better flavour? Is there a doctor in the house?

Maybe it'll all be clearer to me when my little legs reach the ground (see my avatar )

[Gillthepainter Profile Website]

Not everyone wants to take statins.

Re saccharins, you may be referring to risk factors there, which is something else. I gave them up after reading the cancer stories some years ago, even though there was no link.

There's a lot of bad information out there if you are looking for it, les mains.

[Les Mains]

Not everyone wants to take statins.

I'm sure that's true. But why would they want to take a chemical that has a similar effect (reduce cholesterol) in their 'butter'? Benecol is also available in little pots like Yakult from the yog counter. I can't understand why people would prefer to eat medicated food (if that's what it is, it isn't clear to me) rather than medicated capsules. At least with capsules you take exactly what you believe you need whereas with a food, you tend to eat as much as you fancy...practically none at all, some days, maybe, and quite a lot on other days?

[Gillthepainter Profile Website]

I'm not really sure of the point you are making.

Taking capsules isn't that easy really. With drugs you get side effects. And sometimes need to take more drugs to counteract them.

Yakult. For when you're feeling bloooooorted.
Filthy stuff.

[mismatched Profile]

Basically food becomes a drug when the government says so.

[Suelle Profile Website]

People try Benecol and similar products, because if one is bordering on high cholesterol, these products can bring cholesterol down to accepatable (non-risk) levels.

There is a risk when taking statins that isn't there with the plant stanols added to food. Statins can cause liver damage and/or muscular problems. When taking statins one has to undergo regular health checks to keep an eye on these factors. If food supplements, and careful diet work, why take unnecessary drugs?

[hungryhousewife Profile]

You are absolutely right Suelle! My mother nearly died when she was prescribed statins by her doctor. Apparently a fair few people are not suited to statins at all, and if you are unlucky enough to be one of them it can be disastrous.

Re sweeteners - I don't touch them. I know sugar is bad for the system, but I'd rather have proper sugar occasionally than the revolting sweeteners - anyway, to me they taste disgusting and totally spoil the taste of the food. I was given a Pimms made with diet lemonade recently - quite undrinkable.

HH

[Les Mains]

Hmmmm....yes, I follow the reasoning but just because something is called a 'food' doesn't make it safe to eat and could be downright lethal for some. How about nice natural peanuts? Aspirin, opiates and penicillin are not only naturally occurring in foods, they can be poisonous to some and have been used as medicines at least since the beginning of recorded history, if not earlier.

[Stokey Sue Profile]

A drug is regulated in a different way to a foodstuff

A drug is prescribed (or used in the case of non-prescription drugs) in a specific dose for a specific problem - headcahe, pneumonia, whatever/

Foods like Benecol are called "functional foods" - they can make claims that have been shown in studies, but they are still foods, and you don't take them in a specific dose, you may or may not know exactly what the active element(s) are and they most certainly aren't druigs

Here is the official EU information on Functional Foods

http://www.eufic.org/article/en/page/BARCHIVE/expid/basics-functional-foods/

There are a lot of grey areas around herbs and nutritional supplements, not helped by idiots liek Jame Wong - I can't beleive the BBC called a programme "Grow your own drugs" - a title clearer intended to confuse. Fortunately he is so utterly dull, I don't suppose he makes much difference.

[Les Mains]

A drug is regulated in a different way to a foodstuff

A drug is prescribed (or used in the case of non-prescription drugs) in a specific dose for a specific problem - headache, pneumonia, whatever/

Thanks for the information and link on that, Sue. You're going to think me very pedantic but in a sense this thread is about pedantry. Your 'definition' of a 'drug' above doesn't work....suppose you swallow some morphine, for no particular reason, someone spiked your drink or whatever, surely you have still swallowed a 'drug'. Surely the intention at the time of ingestion (e.g. headache, pneumonia) has no bearing on whether a substance is a 'drug'?

[Stokey Sue Profile]

A drug is regulated in a different way to a foodstuff

A drug is prescribed (or used in the case of non-prescription drugs) in a specific dose for a specific problem - headache, pneumonia, whatever/

Thanks for the information and link on that, Sue. You're going to think me very pedantic but in a sense this thread is about pedantry. Your 'definition' of a 'drug' above doesn't work....suppose you swallow some morphine, for no particular reason, someone spiked your drink or whatever, surely you have still swallowed a 'drug'. Surely the intention at the time of ingestion (e.g. headache, pneumonia) has no bearing on whether a substance is a 'drug'?

No you have swallowed a poison, as you did not plan on the "drug" having a therapeutic effect

A drug by definition is (or, by now, perhaps "can be") applied for a therapeuatic effect - the problem is that as we have no other useful word, we still say "drug" when we talk about substance abuse, because morphine can be ued as a medicine, and is controlled uinder the dangerous drugs act we always refer to it as a drug

RFeember I was trying to differentiate betwen a drug and a food, not a drug an all other substances


The FDA definition of a drug, for regualtory purposes is below - this si the defintion I usually use & refer to:

A drug is defined as:
A substance recognized by an official pharmacopoeia or formulary.
A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.
A substance (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.
A substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part or accessory of a device.
Biological products are included within this definition and are generally covered by the same laws and regulations, but differences exist regarding their manufacturing processes (chemical process versus biological process.)

[Les Mains]

A drug is regulated in a different way to a foodstuff

Surely we are talking about the meaning of the word -- i.e. the dictionary definition -- not some regulation or law? Otherwise, which jurisdiction are we referring to, and do we have to re-define the word 'drug' every time the law or regulation changes?

A drug is prescribed (or used in the case of non-prescription drugs) in a specific dose for a specific problem - headache, pneumonia, whatever/

A kife is used to cut things but the noun 'knife' as defined by OED online is "an instrument composed of a blade fixed into a handle, used for cutting or as a weapon." Interestingly (to me, at least) the usage of a knife is included in the definition whereas the usage of the noun 'drug' is not.

The FDA definition of a drug, for regualtory purposes is below - this si the defintion I usually use & refer to:

I don't think it helps to use USA definitions. A Brit wouldn't be embarrassed to go to work without his pants on, unlike an American

From .gov.uk websites the term 'drug' does not have a meaning used in law in the UK. "Illegal drug", "drug misuse", "Class X drug" are used but the word 'drug' seems always to be qualified. The OED definition that I reproduced earlier simply says "Drug: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body:".

To define a 'drug' by its effect or the intention of the person who ingested?, administered?, acquired? or produced? the drug opens a can of worms.

No you have swallowed a poison, as you did not plan on the "drug" having a therapeutic effect

Semantically, you are treading on dangerous ground there. You are implying that if I as a non-medic administer a substance to someone planning for it to have a beneficial therapeutic effect then it becomes a 'drug'? Actually, morphine is not a Controlled Drug (CD) in all presentations. Oral morphine (brand Oramorph) is a Prescription Only Medicine (POM). So would the non-therapeutic use of injectable morphine be 'poison' while the oral morphine is not? If I take morphine am I poisoning myself or using a recreational drug? In some countries I can do that perfectly legally, so is it a 'poison' in the UK and not in some other jurisdiction?

Often people argue because one believes a word means one thing, and the other person believes it to mean something entirely different. The French have the term for this 'Les faux amis'.

[Stokey Sue Profile]

I don't think it helps to use USA definitions.

Oh but it does

I work in drug development, and that is the working defintion used world wide in the "trade" - we often rely on the FDA definitions as they are so clear


A combination of intention and pharmacology (effect on the body) IS the only way to define a drug, as far as I can see (after 35 years in the business). As the FDA say "A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. , which is entirely compatible with UK/EU usage. Intention is absolutely part of the core; then once a substance is regualted as a drug, it is referred to as a drug in all contexts.

There is no regulatory defintion of drug in the UK/EU as we use the term medicine or medicinal product (as in Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA or EMA - European Medicines Agency). We also don't really "do" regulatory glossaries over here, though there is a glossary on the MHRA site, it isn't very helpful. to this discussion This is all based on the 1968 Medicines Act (though control of drugs & medicines goes back to the 14th centruy in UK law, which makes it fairly complex)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/67/contents

[Les Mains]

I don't think it helps to use USA definitions.

Oh but it does

I work in drug development, and that is the working defintion used world wide in the "trade" - we often rely on the FDA definitions as they are so clear

Only a tiny fraction of the population of the United Kingdom work in the field of pharmaceuticals. It's fine for industries to have their own jargon and usage...indeed most industries do...but the general population have to work with dictionary definitions...such as the Oxford English Dictionary. How else can anyone find out what a word means?

There are established channels for inputting usage to the OED and quite often you'll find specialist usages given as alternative meanings. The full link to the OED on 'drug' can be found here:- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/drug?q=drug

I see that the OED doesn't publish the FDA meaning that you posted.