Did you hear that General Mills got a warning letter from the FDA? Cheerios has been promoting its health benefits -- specifically its ability to reduce cholesterol -- in packaging, TV and print advertisements for the past two years. Although they have clinical data to back it up, the FDA says they can't make those claims without applying for a new drug approval.

From pharma's view, consumer packaged goods marketers have been often looked as innovators with their use of marketing practices, especially the use of the online medium. I've worked in an agency where some of us were pharma-focused and some were CPG-focused. I often got teased by my CPG colleagues that the pharma side wasn't as creative, and it's true that pharma communications must follow strict guidelines from the FDA [that were originally created for print and broadcast and have never been adapted for the online medium]. But now, with the recent FDA warning letter about Cheerios' claims, it looks like CPG is being told, "if you want to play in our sandbox, you have to play by our rules."

I must admit I'm a bit surprised by the warning letter. While I recognize that claims by products we consume should be truthful, it seems that this is a bit over-the-top. If this is truly a concern -- that Cheerios is misleading the American public by making these claims -- then why did it take two years for the FDA to issue a warning letter? And with pharma, warning letters are a concern for the companies that receive them because they may prompt class action lawsuits. Although our society is pretty litigious, will anyone go after Cheerios for this? What do you think?