Forget raw milk. The big new conflict is over raw oysters:
In an effort to reduce cases of a rare, but potentially fatal, bacterial illness contracted from raw oysters, the FDA announced new rules this month that will require any oyster served from April through October to undergo a sterilization process before it can be sold in restaurants or on the market.
The rule will essentially eliminate raw oysters — at least as Louisianans know them — from restaurant menus for seven months of the year. Even oysters that will eventually be cooked during those months would have to go through the same cleansing process before being added to any dish, a move some say would undermine the culinary integrity of some of New Orleans’ most famous delicacies.
The illness in question is serious but rare, and primarily affects only those with weakened immune systems:
The vibrio vulnificus disease, the target of the FDA initiative, affects about 30 individuals per year nationwide who eat raw oysters from Gulf Coast. About half of those who get the disease, which invades the bloodstream and can cause a severe fever and skin lesions, eventually die.
But those most at risk from vibrio are people who already have immune system disorders, such as AIDS, cancer, kidney disease, diabetes or alcohol abuse.
As is typical of the FDA, the agency is choosing coercion over education and ignoring the right of adults to take a calculated risk in pursuit of culinary delicacies. The new rules will also favor large oyster operations and hurt small businesses, due to the large capital investments required to sterilize the oysters. It will surely lead to a robust black market in unsterilized oysters too.
The rule won’t take effect until 2011, so there’s still some chance to save raw oysters from the FDA’s overreach.
The nation’s top distributor of clove cigarettes is offering fans a new way to get their fix after the spice-flavored cigarettes are banned at the end of this month—cigars.
The new filtered cigars—close to the size of a cigarette and flavored with clove, vanilla and cherry—allow Kretek International Inc., which imports Djarum-brand tobacco products from Indonesia, to avoid new federal laws banning flavored cigarettes other than menthol.
The ban on flavored cigarettes, which critics say appeal to teenagers, doesn’t include cigars.
The difference? Cigarettes are wrapped in thin paper, cigars in tobacco leaves. While the cigars also are made with a different kind of tobacco, the taste is similar. The cigars come 12 to a pack, rather than 20 for cigarettes, but cost nearly half as much.
Why is this troubling? Not because people will continue smoking killer cloves. Not even because cigar shops may now be filled with their powerful aroma. No, it’s troubling because it will attract the government’s attention to cigars:
Whether the cigars are truly different or just an attempt to circumvent the ban by making superficial changes is in the hands of the FDA, said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
“The key is the legislation gives the FDA the authority to respond to these types of frankly totally irresponsible actions,” Mr. Myers said.
Mr. Myers joined executives from the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the Amercian Legacy Foundation late last month urging the FDA to take a closer look at the issue.
Regulation of cigars is currently fairly light, allowing for the development of new brands and competition among them. And as an essentially pure agricultural product — they’re just rolls of cured leaves — that’s the way things ought to be. If the FDA or Congress starts turning its attention to cigars there’s no telling what harm they could to the industry.
I wrote about the pseudoscientific absurdity of banning flavored tobacco here.
The New York Times editorial page leads today with a screed against tobacco companies for their lawsuit challenging advertising restrictions in the new FDA law. The board alleges that the companies are challenging the law so that they can surreptitiously market to minors. Leaving aside the authors’ cavalier dismissal of First Amendment rights, this is yet another example of how the board completely misunderstands the current state of tobacco regulation.
It’s easy to test whether the Times‘ charge has merit since there are basically just two reasons that firms pay for advertising. One is to introduce new consumers to a product they don’t currently use, which is what the Times believes Big Tobacco wants to do with young people and cigarettes. The other is to lure existing consumers of a product away from competing producers. This lets us make different predictions based on which motive we think is dominant.
If the Times is right and it’s the former, all tobacco companies would benefit from overturning the advertising restrictions and would present a united opposition to the law. If it’s the latter, only the smaller tobacco companies would challenge it; the largest firm would favor the law as a means of restricting competition.
Reynolds, the second-largest U.S. cigarette maker, and third-biggest Lorillard Tobacco Co. sued after opposing the legislation that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight over tobacco products. [...] Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, which makes half of the cigarettes sold in the U.S., supported FDA regulation and endorsed the law.
This doesn’t mean that the smaller companies don’t want to target youth too or that Philip Morris won’t eventually join in, but Philip-Morris’ ambivalence is telling. The anti-competitive effects of the law were clearly one of the main factors at work in its passage.
Reading the Times’ editorial you would never know that the nation’s single largest producer of cigarettes isn’t part of the current lawsuit. This is the same error of omission they made with their opposition to Senator Kirstin Gillibrand, discussed at length here. Time and again the board’s anti-tobacco zealotry has caused them to misunderstand how tobacco regulation has changed after the Master Settlement Agreement. Big tobacco companies, and Philip Morris especially, now view the government as a partner they can use to protect their market share. By consistently misconstruing the effects of new regulations and neglecting to mention the industry’s hand in writing them, The New York Times has become the best mouthpiece Philip Morris could ever hope for.
The FDA already forbids the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk. A section tucked into the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 threatens to give the agency new powers over intrastate commerce, overriding the rights of consumers and state laws allowing its sale. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund explains:
HR 2749 requires the HHS Secretary to issue “science-based performance standards . . . applicable to foods or food classes.” The Secretary is to “identify the most significant foodborne contaminants and the most significant resulting hazards . . . and to minimize to an acceptable level, prevent or eliminate the occurrence of such hazards.” [8a] FDA would have the power to make pasteurization of all raw milk a performance standard. Based on both its public statements and its record of taking enforcement actions against farmers, FDA is vehemently opposed to the consumption of raw milk and would like to ban its distribution.
Even if FDA does not issue a performance standard requiring pasteurization, the likelihood is that if HR 2749 passes into law, the agency will be increasing its enforcement actions against raw milk producers whose products cross state lines. FDA has indicated that raw milk is a priority item with the agency; with the passage of HR 2749, it would have much greater resources to go after raw milk than it did before. FDA could take enforcement action directly or through state agencies funded by FDA.
The bill doesn’t explicitly mention pasteurization, but if that’s an accurate reading of the law it could effectively end legal raw milk sales in the US. My case for removing government barriers to buying raw milk was published at Reason last year.
Ben points me to William Saletan’s article on the FDA bill and asks what I think of it. Obviously Saletan’s far more of a paternalist than I am and thinks he knows best what people should and should not consume. The only reason he wouldn’t ban tobacco is because a black market would develop. The fact that some people want to enjoy it doesn’t even enter into his calculations.
But that aside, his take on the bill is better than most, but still too optimistic. If all we wanted was safer tobacco products we would allow the FDA to approve them based on a straightforward comparison to existing products. Instead the law requires the agency to take the much more paternalist approach of trying to predict whether the gains from safer products would be offset by more people taking up tobacco or fewer people quitting. It’s too early to tell just how this will play out, but it’s a potentially huge hurdle to the creation and marketing of safer cigarettes and alternatives.
I’m also skeptical that the FDA can optimally regulate nicotine yields. Mandating lower yields, as the FDA is now empowered to do, would cause current smokers to light up more frequently or inhale more intensely. They’d be taking in more tar and carcinogens to get the same hit of nicotine, a substance that in itself is basically harmless. The hope would be that lower yields cause fewer new smokers to become dependent and ween some smokers off the drug; I’m not comfortable with the idea of sacrificing smokers’ lives to potentially prevent others from taking up the habit.
Saletan thinks that FDA tobacco regulation will be “rational.” I disagree, and the recent uproar over e-cigarettes is an example of how regulations are more likely to play out. Michael Siegel highlighted the absurdity a couple weeks ago:
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association have supported the legislation, about to be enacted, which asks the FDA to make cigarettes safer by removing certain of the more than 4,000 known constituents in the tobacco smoke.
At the same time, these groups have asked the FDA to ban a product (electronic cigarettes) which has already been developed and which already has eliminated all of the 4,000 known constituents in tobacco smoke, other than the nicotine.
I can’t help it, but this is the ultimate in insanity.
Why would you put your heart and soul into a a piece of legislation that, at very best, will allow the FDA to remove a few of the constituents from cigarette smoke but at the same time, demand that a product which has succeeded in removing all (but nicotine) of these constituents be immediately taken off the market?
E-cigarettes resemble smoking in appearance, threaten the market for patches and gums produced by major drug companies, and give health activist groups a new evil to rail against, but there’s no evidence whatsoever that they are harmful — certainly not more harmful than real cigarettes. In a rational regulatory environment they would not be threatened. What we have instead is a highly politicized regulatory environment, one in which the lobbying arms of drug companies, Big Tobacco, and public health groups will wield the greatest influence. Expecting good regulations to emerge from this process is, well, irrational.
For purposes of argument, let’s say you buy into paternalism and the government’s ability to do a good job with it (no need to reargue those points in the comments, they are only simplifying assumptions for the purpose of focusing on another question).
My question is: why impose quality restrictions when higher taxes would appear to be more efficient in limiting consumption and raising revenue at the same time? Revenue is especially scarce right now and making cigarettes less appealing lowers the revenue that can be raised by taxing them.
He’s right, of course, that higher taxes would be a more sensible policy. But raising taxes is a win-lose proposition: It’s a win for health activists and politicians, a loss for the cigarette companies. It’s hard to push the tax hike through the political process. Regulating quality is potentially a win-win: A win for health activists and politicians and a win for Big Tobacco companies who get to protect their market share via the menthol exemption, restrictions on advertising, and new hurdles to the creation and marketing of safer tobacco products. Taxes create opposition between the two groups, regulation can bring them together.
This legislation is obviously illogical from a public health point of view. It makes sense only as bootleggers and Baptists style cooperation, as one more significant step toward the cartelization of the tobacco industry.
Loved your article about the FDA tobacco bill in The New York Times today. Omitting the fact that Philip Morris produces the second largest menthol brand in the country was a nice touch. I also like the way you neglected to quote any critics of the bill or mention its likely unintended consequences. That’s exactly the kind of reporting we need to keep the bad legislation coming. Good work!
Sincerely,
Jacob Grier
Update: In fairness, the quote from the Association of National Advertisers buried at the end of the article is technically critical. But still, that’s as far removed from the core issues of the legislation as one could possibly get and doesn’t even touch on the health aspects.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes today in favor of the bill giving the FDA authority over tobacco because, uh, regulation is good and stuff. They urge the agency to work quickly once the law goes into effect to ban menthol cigarettes, since menthol masks the harsh taste of tobacco and causes people to smoke more.
I agree! But I don’t think we should stop there. Alcohol and obesity also kill thousands of Americans every year, and with a few simple changes to American food and drink products we can save countless lives:
No more aging whiskies — Did you know that aging whiskey in a barrel for several years masks the harsh flavor of spirits coming straight from the still? It’s true! If we ban aging and force distillers to sell only white dog, we can cut whiskey consumption in no time.
No more hops in beer — People would drink much less beer if we stopped balancing out malts with those pesky, flavorful cones.
No more toppings and condiments — Nefarious fast-food companies trick consumers into eating their hamburgers by masking the taste of beef with tasty things like ketchup, mustard, and mayo. Forcing them to sell plain meat on a bun would do wonders for the national waistline.
No more milk chocolate — Dark chocolate is good for you, milk chocolate not so much. Bye bye, Mars bars!
No more vanilla lattes — Coffee is naturally bitter. For too long Starbucks has been addicting its customers to caffeine by masking that bitterness with sugary syrups. A venti caramel Frappuccino with whipped cream? 500 calories. A single espresso? 5 calories. The way forward is clear.
See, saving lives is easy when all you have to do is make the products people like taste bad. If only the FDA had control over all our consumption decisions, how healthy we all could be!
Michael Siegel links to this excellent article in Slate by Paul Smalera (in which he is extensively quoted). Smalera does a great job explaining the flaws and inconsistencies in the FDA tobacco bill. However he does slip into a pernicious way of thinking about the menthol cigarette exemption and race that needs to be challenged and avoided.
Smalera pushes the idea that this bill is “racist” because it bans the cigarette flavors that virtually no one smokes and exempts the one that many people do smoke, especially if they happen to be black. (Though, as he notes, the total number of white menthol smokers is approximately twice that of black menthol smokers.) In any other context, the racist move would be to ban the product that’s strongly preferred by African-American consumers; here it’s considered racist not to ban it. This idea portrays blacks in particular as helpless victims of tobacco companies who must be treated like children by a protective government.
In contrast, here is what non-racist tobacco policy would look like: Educate people about the dangers of cigarettes, tax them at a reasonable level, work aggressively to keep them out of the hands of minors, and then let all consumers — yes, even blacks! — make their own decisions about what, if anything, they choose to smoke.
The real reason the FDA bill exempts menthol has nothing to do with race: Menthol cigarettes make money and thus have lobbying power behind them. Clove, grape, and chocolate cigarettes don’t make much money and thus don’t have lobbying power behind them. End of story.
Unfortunately, the FDA bill is almost certain to pass and we will all be stuck with a law that, for all the reasons Smalera elucidates, will be good for virtually no one except Philip Morris. There are plenty of reasons to oppose it, not the least of which is the question of whether the government has any business at all forbidding adults from buying flavored cigarettes. The constant introduction of race into the debate distracts from these more important issues.
The nomination of William Corr — former executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, where he was a registered lobbyist until September — highlights the murkiness of Mr. Obama’s antilobbyist policy.
Mr. Obama requires employees to sign a pledge stating they will not “participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the two years before the date of my appointment.” Those rules prohibit Mr. Corr from working on tobacco issues, the White House says.
But Mr. Corr’s nomination raises another question: In an era when industries often make financial donations to public-interest groups that support policies that help those industries, when are public-interest advocates conflicted by the funding that supports the causes they advocate?
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has received millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies that would benefit from the organization’s work to reduce smoking because they sell products that help people quit, such as Nicorette gum and NicoDerm patches.
If confirmed, Mr. Corr would help run a department that not only regulates the drug industry through its Food and Drug Administration arm but also is its biggest payer through federal insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, said the drug-industry funding of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids creates “a win-win: They get to support the public interest at the same time they are supporting their bottom lines.”
Krumholz’s attitude will likely carry the day. After all, who could object to accepting money from drug companies for promoting anti-smoking measures?
There is, however, a real conflict of interest here. As discussed previously on this blog, the FDA will likely soon take a very active role in tobacco regulation and is in the process of banning electronic cigarettes. There is no evidence whatsoever that the latter are harmful to anyone — anyone except pharmaceutical companies, that is. They have become an increasingly popular alternative to patches and gums for people looking to quit smoking. It’s legitimate to ask if Corr should be involved in their regulation given his ties to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which receives funding from pharmaceutical companies and has publicly supported the e-cigarette ban.
I have no reason to doubt that Corr will be a perfectly sincere regulator; if anything, I am worried that he will be an excessively zealous one. But he should be held to the same standard as other nominees, not given a free pass because he happened to be a lobbyist for a politically correct cause. Kudos to reporters Jane Zhang and Brody Mullins for bringing these issues to light.
Today’s New York Times devotes a long editorial to questioning the ethics of new senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The main thrust of the editors’ argument is that Gillibrand represented Philip Morris when she worked as an attorney and, inexcusably, advocated fiercely on behalf of her client. In short, she was a good lawyer.
Even so, it’s reasonable to bring up that relationship when evaluating a new senator, especially with major tobacco bills currently working their way through Congress. What’s not reasonable is failing to mention that the bill giving regulatory power to the FDA that is headed to the Senate right now is backed enthusiastically by Philip Morris. The editors strive to give the opposite impression:
She was privy to unsuccessful efforts to dissuade a smaller tobacco company, the Liggett Group, from breaking ranks and cooperating with prosecutors — a move, it was feared, that could result in the release of incriminating internal documents and a strengthening of Food and Drug Administration efforts to regulate the marketing and sale of cigarettes, including to children.
That was prior to the Master Settlement Agreement. As anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the industry knows, the MSA marked a sea change in big tobacco companies’ strategy for dealing with the government, especially with regard to Philip Morris/Altria. Pre-MSA they generally opposed unrelentingly every regulatory encroachment. Post-MSA their strategy has been to partner with regulators to preserve the Big Tobacco oligopoly. The FDA bill is an especially egregious attempt to secure Philip Morris’ market share and eliminate competitors.
The Times’ understanding of contemporary tobacco policy strikes me as superficial at best and deliberately misleading at worst. They support the FDA bill because it represents “real power to regulate tobacco products,” but I’m not convinced they’ve really thought through its unintended consequences. They believe Philip Morris is a villain but refuse to acknowledge that the villain and the government have been teaming up for years now. They do their readers a disservice by ignoring this changed regulatory landscape.
I swear I hadn’t read this story when I wrote the previous post. Frank Lautenberg, a senator from New Jersey and a supporter of the bill giving the FDA authority over tobacco, is urging the agency to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the product, e-cigarettes deliver nicotine without tobacco smoke, making them much safer than real cigarettes and a potentially useful tool for quitting smoking. Predictably, the response from government officials is to ban anything that could make the enjoyment of nicotine less dangerous. As Michael Siegel sums up the situation:
One company has a product on the market which delivers only nicotine. There are potentially serious health effects of this nicotine, especially with regards to heart disease. However, there are no other toxic chemicals and no carcinogens, so there is no risk of cancer or chronic obstructive lung disease.
Another company has a product on the market which delivers nicotine plus more than 4000 other chemicals and toxins, including over 60 proven carcinogens, and which we know kills over 400,000 people a year.
Our health groups’ response: prohibit the first company from marketing its product, but officially provide government approval of the products manufactured by the second company.
What Senator Lautenberg and the health groups are trying to do is ban a much less harmful type of cigarette but to give an official government seal of approval to the much more toxic one that we know is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.
Siegel goes on to hypothesize that opposition to e-cigarettes is driven by money from pharmaceutical companies who stand to lose from competition to their nicotine gums and patches. I have thus far been skeptical of this idea, but I am beginning to find it more plausible.
In any case, this example demonstrates the dangers of allowing the FDA to control which tobacco-related products Americans may or may not legally consume.
The Washington Post editorial board, which has never seen an anti-tobacco regulation it doesn’t like, pushed again on Friday for giving regulatory authority over tobacco to the FDA. Their editorial includes this line:
These sensible restrictions are why more than 1,000 organizations — even tobacco giant Altria, the parent company of Richmond-based Philip Morris — support the legislation.
How incredibly naive does one have to be for Philip Morris’ support of a tobacco bill not to raise a few red flags? The proposed regulations sound reasonable as The Post describes them, but their unintended consequences would be deadly:
If this becomes law, makers of alternative tobacco products, such as smokeless tobacco, will be explicitly forbidden from mentioning in advertising or any other forum that their product is safer than cigarettes, even though this is true. The development and marketing of safer cigarettes could be blocked and “low tar” labels eliminated. The FDA could mandate lower nicotine levels, causing current smokers to inhale more cigarettes to ingest the same dose. Smokers who prefer flavored cigarettes are completely screwed, as every flavor except for menthol will be banned. This is all to the good of Philip Morris, maker of the popular Marlboro menthol brand; new restrictions on advertising and the costs of complying with new regulations will prevent smaller companies from eating into its market share, while denying consumers valuable information about the relative safety of other forms of tobacco will keep other competition at bay.
The Post misleadingly describes this as a consumer safety bill, comparing unregulated cigarettes to recent peanut contamination. But the perverse effect of FDA oversight would be that consumers would be even less informed than they are now, and demonstrably safer cigarettes could be kept off the market if regulators believe they would induce consumers to smoke more frequently. In short, the bill empowers the FDA to decide that it’s better for current smokers to die than for new smokers to enjoy a safer alternative. Call that what you like, but it isn’t consumer protection.
Another miracle fruit story? Yawn. But this one has an interesting tidbit:
About five months ago, a Miami, Florida, hospital began studying whether the fruit’s sweetening effects can restore the appetite of cancer patients whose chemotherapy treatments have left them with dulled taste buds.
“What happens in patients is the food tastes so metallic and bland, it becomes repulsive,” said Dr. Mike Cusnir, a lead researcher on the project and oncologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center. “Most of the patients undergoing chemotherapy have weight loss. Then they cut further into their diet and then this furthers the weight loss. It causes malnutrition, decreased function of the body and electrolyte imbalance.” [...]
Cusnir filed for an investigational new drug application, which is required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use an unapproved product in a new patient population. His study seeks 40 cancer patients.
“The majority have given good feedback that it did improve taste,” Cusnir said. “A few patients felt there wasn’t much change. The feedback is mixed as it usually is in any situation. It’s been encouraging, but we haven’t analyzed the data so far.”
The FDA has stonewalled journalists seeking information about why the agency shut down efforts to market miraculin, the protein in miracle fruit that causes sour foods to taste sweet. Hopefully being faced with a new application will force them to be more transparent, or at least to give the berry another chance. Meeting safety standards for medicinal use might also pave the way toward getting it approved as a food additive in consumer products.
Two months ago, federal food regulators said they were unable to set a safety threshold for the industrial chemical melamine in baby formula. Now, however, they found a way to settle on a standard that allows for higher levels than those found in U.S.-made batches of the product.
Food and Drug Administration officials on Friday set a threshold of 1 part per million of melamine in formula, provided a related chemical is not present. They insisted the formulas are safe.
The development comes days after The Associated Press reported that FDA tests found traces of melamine in the infant formula of one major U.S. manufacturer and cyanuric acid, a chemical relative, in the formula of a second major maker. The contaminated samples, which both measured at levels below the new standard, were analyzed several weeks ago…
Dr. Stephen Sundlof, the FDA’s director of food safety, said Friday the agency was confident in the 1 part per million level for either of the chemicals alone, even though there have been no new scientific studies since October that would give regulators more safety data. He had no ready explanation for why the level was not set earlier…
Those three formula makers manufacture more than 90 percent of all infant formula produced in the United States.
The agency had left the impression of a zero tolerance on Oct. 3 when it stated: “FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns.”
I have no reason to think that this is a bad decision, but it’s certainly a telling one. Two months ago the FDA had zero tolerance for melamine in formula. Then as soon it’s revealed that formula from major corporate producers contains melamine they adjust the standard with no new scientific study. Contrast this with the agency’s current crackdown on small raw milk farmers and it’s easy to see why natural food advocates are so skeptical of FDA warnings about unpasteurized dairy.
The Washington Post reminds us of one more reason not to vote for Obama or McCain in November: they’re both co-sponsors of the bill to put tobacco products under oversight of the FDA. The Post supports this, of course, presumably on the theory that regulation is always good and regulation of evil tobacco companies is even better. The fact that Philip Morris supports the proposal too suggests it’s not as good an idea as they believe it to be.
If this becomes law, makers of alternative tobacco products, such as smokeless tobacco, will be explicitly forbidden from mentioning in advertising or any other forum that their product is safer than cigarettes, even though this is true. The development and marketing of safer cigarettes could be blocked and “low tar” labels eliminated. The FDA could mandate lower nicotine levels, causing current smokers to inhale more cigarettes to ingest the same dose. Smokers who prefer flavored cigarettes are completely screwed, as every flavor except for menthol will be banned. This is all to the good of Philip Morris, maker of the popular Marlboro menthol brand; new restrictions on advertising and the costs of complying with new regulations will prevent smaller companies from eating into its market share, while denying consumers valuable information about the relative safety of other forms of tobacco will keep other competition at bay. (See this Reason article for details.)
This bill will not hurt Philip Morris and won’t keep consumers safe. It will eliminate consumer choice, secure the Big Tobacco oligopoly, and ensure that existing smokers are more likely to die from their habit. Bush, to his credit, has opposed it. In this regard, at least, his replacement will be significantly worse that he is.
I’ve had many opportunities to try fresh miracle fruit, the strange African berry that makes sour foods taste sweet, but before this weekend I’d never sampled the miracle fruit tablets that are widely available in Asia. They’ve been unavailable in the US because of a dubious decision by the FDA to deny miraculin, the fruit’s active protein, status as a “generally recognized as safe” ingredient. There’s no reason to think it’s harmful and many suspect that lobbying by the artificial sweetener industry was behind the classification (see articles by The Wall Street Journal or BBC). Instead we in the US have only been able to purchase the fruit itself, a perishable, expensive, hard-to-find berry that only grows in warm weather and acidic soil.
That’s finally changing. Given the growing interest in experiencing the effects of miraculin, a few websites have sprung up to import and sell the tablets. Made entirely of corn starch and “Mysterious Fruit Powder,” these tablets replicate the effects of miracle fruit. Miracle Fruit Express was nice enough to send me a sample for review.
“These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration,” cautions the instruction page that came with the package of miracle fruit tablets. “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Although there have been no reported ill effects, or any known side-effects, we cannot guarantee your safety and can not be held liable for any damage or loss of life.”
That’s not the most comforting thing to read on a package of pills that’s just been sent you by an internet vendor, but knowing that miracle fruit has been used for centuries and having tried it many times myself, I tore into the box without concern.
They’re produced by the Sen Yuh Farm Science Company in Taiwan. The package says, “It is the most amazing sugar substitute known to man. It is 100% natural, has hardly any calories, and no known adverse side effects and is, all in all, good for health.”
As with fresh miracle fruit, the key to making the tablets work is to let them roll around the tongue and coat the taste buds as thoroughly as possible. The tablets are mildly sweet, with a vaguely cherry-like flavor. They take about a minute to dissolve. Then, it’s time for dessert! From the food I have at home (i.e. cocktail garnishes), I assembled a plate of lemons, limes, strawberries, and a shot of fresh-squeezed lemon juice to taste after using the tablet.
The taste transformation is everything I remember from my first sample of miracle fruit. The lemon and lime slices were like tart candy, the juice was pleasant to drink on its own, and the strawberries brought me back to the ones covered in confectioner’s sugar I used to eat as a kid. I couldn’t get enough of them. The effect is certainly stronger than what I’ve experienced recently with frozen berries, which tend to lose some of their potency.
Are the tablets better than the berries? Not necessarily. There’s something magical about eating a rare, fragile fruit that makes ordinary sour foods taste sweet. In a culture that’s accustomed to pills that can end our depression, put us to sleep, and extend our sex lives, getting the same effect from a tablet isn’t quite as amazing. But the fruit has some major disadvantages: it goes bad quickly, it’s costly to ship, and it’s in limited supply. Tablets last longer and can be taken any time. It’s easy to imagine dieters, diabetics, and adventurous foodies keeping a couple of them in their pockets for an afternoon treat. They couldn’t do that with the berries.
Though they lack the romance of the fruit, the tablets are cheaper and far more practical. If it weren’t for the government’s restrictive regulations, I’m sure they’d be as readily available here as they are in Asia. You can buy them now from Miracle Fruit Express. They currently go for $25 for 10, $40 for 20, and $90 for 55. Shipping is included (a nice change from the overnight shipping required for the fresh berries). For anyone who wants to sample miracle fruit without having to wait for a new crop or risk letting the berries go rotten, the tablets are a great way to try it out.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. Watch this:
Jacob Grier is a freelance writer, barista, mixologist, and magician in Portland, OR. He writes, eats, and drinks a lot. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Reason Online, The Oregonian, and other publications.
Jacob Grier is a freelance writer, barista, mixologist, and magician in Portland, OR. He writes, eats, and drinks a lot. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Reason Online, The Oregonian, and other publications.
Follow me on Twitter