The response of Dr. Stephen Barrett of Casewatch (quoted in immediately previous segment) didn’t sit well with John King of King Orchards, a 300-acre family cherry farm in Traverse City, MI. Barrett’s advice–essentially, suck it up and don’t discuss the health benefits of tart cherries–prompted a lengthy rebuttal on the King Orchards web site.
King points out to Barriett that both he and the FDA would be hard pressed to demonstrate any danger to the public from highlighting the health benefits of tart cherries because "it would not be possible to prove that cherries are dangerous, nor would it be possible to negate or dismiss the body of decades of research upon which the statements of potential health benefits of tart cherries rests." King goes on to provide a compelling argument not only for the health claims of tart cherries, but for the importance of family farming to the culture and economy of modern-day America. He also takes on Barrett’s condescending attitude by stating that the notion that "the FDA or the pharmaceutical corporations are the only authorities on this subject, as contrasted with the growers who are presumed to be hayseeds trying to turn a quick buck by questionable means, is wholly false and rests on complete ignorance of the subject."
King’s conclusion distills the entire matter: "…we should keep in mind lemons were curing scurvy 150 years before we could ‘prove’ that they could. Had that been discovered today, the FDA would be forcing lemon growers to remain silent about that if the same rationale were used that was applied to tart cherry growers." Check it out–it’s a great read.
Recent Comments