The Smalrus Web Site

Drink’s calorie-burning claims probed

the controversy about enviga is going to be about their marketing claims. in conjunction with atty gen blumenthal, they’re actually being sued by another nonprofit – center for science in the public interest.

the thing is, bluementhal is saying enviga is the first to claim that theres some weight loss associated with drinking it. however, enviga doesnt market it as a weight-loss aid, they market it as a calorie burner. those claims may be unsubstantiated, however there is no more or less substantiation for calorie reduction than there is (or not) for any other product offering antioxidants. for instance, their marketing relies on the whole EGCG antioxidant concept, which, with some small amounts of caffeine are supposed to be weight controllers or calorie-burners or cholesterol reducers. atleast thats what we’ve been told by scientists. however, if you look on say, snapple’s green tea, they market the same ingredient.

thus, the question becomes whether or not blumenthal is targeting the effect of the product itself or the validity of marketing claims. and if he succeeds in rejecting the claims, then i would be curious to see what kind of impact this has on the marketing of any other product that contains antioxidants.

i had a major thesis breakthrough in the shower yesterday morning.  i wrote it all down and i should have a posting in the next day or so.  in the meanwhile, ive just been keeping busy reading for that and attending seth’s superbowl party.  such a disappointing game and commericials – definitely one of the worst yet. 

not much else has been happening of consequence for me to comment on, other than trying to see how george bush will balance the budget by 2012.  he has managed to increase military funding to $20,000 per second (making the pentagon the worlds 16th largest economy) yet slashed some of the entitlement funding to do so.  i understand his reasons for cutting entitlement funding for the wealthy, however it doesnt seem to balance military spending.  at this rate, the budget will not be balanced by 2012 (leaving this legacy to his successor) and instead will remain at the same deficit by 2012, unless the next president manages to reduce military funding. 

it will be interesting to see what congressional debate says about this budget, given the failure of the democrats to pass an opposition resolution against the iraq troop surge.  if they cant pass a non-binding resolution, it seems only likely that military appropriation as outlined in the budget will remain as-is and the bush agenda will live on….