Quaker Defends Oat Bran Ads in Wake of Texas Suit

Quaker Oats Co., once known for puffed cereal “shot from guns,” trained its legal firepower on the Texas attorney general Monday in defense of its ads praising the health benefits of oat bran.

“The Texas state attorney general does not want us to communicate health messages to the citizens of his state,” said Luther C. McKinney, chief legal officer of Chicago-based Quaker.

Atty. Gen. Jim Mattox alleged in a lawsuit filed Thursday in Austin that Quaker ads claiming that oats can reduce cholesterol and, in turn, lessen the risk of heart attack, are “replete with exaggerations, half-truths and misinformation.”

“Let me state unequivocally that we dispute his allegations. Our advertising for our oat products is truthful and is supported by valid, reliable scientific evidence,” McKinney told a Food and Drug Law Institute seminar in Washington.

He also called for creation of food industry guidelines allowing substantiated health claims on package labels and in ads without prior government approval.

Alleged guideline violations could be reviewed “on a case-by-case basis” by the federal Food and Drug Administration, he said.

Kellogg Accused

In addition, McKinney accused competitor Kellogg Co. of “marketing by inference” because the Battle Creek, Mich., cereal maker has said it will not make health claims--only health messages--for its high-fiber Heartwise cereal.

That dispute is over psyllium, a grain from India that is high in soluble fiber--shown to reduce blood cholesterol levels.

Kellogg’s Heartwise contains psyllium, which is about 80% soluble fiber, compared to oat bran, which is about 10%.

But critics say psyllium, an ingredient in some laxatives, should be considered a drug and not included in food products without FDA approval.

“I can understand Mr. McKinney’s concern here, in that psyllium is a natural grain that has 10 times the soluble fiber as oat bran--and that’s the issue,” said Joseph M. Stewart, Kellogg’s senior vice president.

McKinney reserved most of his criticism for Mattox, however, saying, “Those supporting a ban on public health claims for food are essentially advocating consumer ignorance.”