1.

1 Based on FDA’s defense, that the claim by Pearson didn’t meet the threshold of “significant
scientific evidence” is rather reasonable considering the cigarette pandemic that ravaged the
country before it was realized to cause cancer. Prior, scientific assertions by scientists who
experimented on the drug at the beginning said cigarettes were good for health, but they
weren’t. With that in mind, the court did not fully comprehend the depth of the reasons by
the FDA in rejecting the claims requested by Pearson. The statement by the court didn’t cure
the misleading nature of the cancer prevention because like cigarettes, at that time, research
regarding cancers was still building and the evidence required to irrefutably acclaim that
antioxidants reduce the risk of contracting cancer wasn’t sufficient. The situation from the
cigarette pandemic resonates with the plausible assertion that the scientific process is
immensely experimental, where after several experiments on a particular subject, data
collected results in a consensus that either agrees with or rejects the initial hypothesis for the
given subject. Antioxidants may reduce cancer risk but the studies supporting the claim was
not substantial to accrue a consensus.
1.2 The court did not understand the nature of scientific evidence on the lines of the scientific
process and how evidence is proved correct. In science, research needs to be peer reviewed,
where scientists in the same field verify claims made by other scientists, a problem-solving
process more like trial and error, before coming up with the right claim that is true in all
perspectives. A good example can be seen through how new studies redefine how people
(consumers and scientists alike) perceive certain things in the world. A good example comes
from the Clean Air Act of 1970 where the government decided to put a limit to how much
American companies would pollute the air. The chemicals used; Sulphur dioxide, lead,
among others were deemed okay by the scientific community but later, when the Ozone
started showing a hole, ozone depleting substances like the CFCs had to be caped and
deemed dangerous including pollutants on the Clean Air Act of 1970. New science had
surfaced to reject the amount of pollutants favorable for humans (i.e., lead). Therefore, the
court doesn’t grapple the nature of scientific evidence. Reliability of scientific evidence
varies based on how much review a claim has been exposed to, rather the assertion from a
handful of studies in academia.
2 2.1 When the element of consumers is introduced in the equation involving the claims made
by Pearson, and suggestive evidence, the operation is critically impaired. First, consumers are
the public, and in this sense, be perceived as individuals out to consume whatever is in the
market based on preferences, utility, and layman (yet rational) decision making. Second, a
government is expected to have the interests of it’s citizens at heart, and anything allowed
within it’s jurisdiction works in the best interest of the citizens. That said, the complexity of
adding prefix ‘suggestive’ to ‘evidence’ makes it complicated enough for a normal citizen,
without comprehensive knowledge in chemistry, biology, and any other field relating to
composition of supplementary diets or anything in the market. Consider a citizen who
consumes commodities in aviation industry, health industry, hospitality industry, fashion
industry, telecommunications industry, which are led by experts in those fields. The
knowledge a consumer is expected to have lies on the basics (price, availability, safety and
utility), and anything that goes further can be deemed expert, including consumers having
knowledge of supplementary diets, if antioxidants are effective in treating cancer. The
 government needs to make informed decisions on behalf of consumers (citizens). Consumers
cannot understand the difference between evidence and suggestive evidence.
2.2 In most cases, evidence that isn’t scientifically reliable cannot be deemed inherently
misleading. When scientific claims are made, academia takes an impartial approach to the
claims, and validation is gained through peer review (where the claims are tested rigorously
before making the theory a fact). From the moment a scientific claim is made to the point
where it’s considered reliable or not, the verdict comes from the peer reviews, and therefore,
scientific claims made cannot be misleading when looked at from this perspective. Claims
can only be branded misleading when there is an overwhelming support, through peer
review, that the claim made earlier doesn’t hold scientifically.
2.3 In instances where the claim is more qualified to be invalid than valid, then scientific
evidence collected probably leans to the side of ‘not enough’ or ‘fundamentally wrong’.
Claims are always tested to determine their validity.
3 Food distributors are in business and likely to use qualified health claims since such claims
are simply scientifically asserted but there is not much evidence to prove the claim. When the
element of proving is removed, food distributors have a chance to conjure claims based on
isolated scientific claims that may be or may not be true, but haven’t been proven yet.
References

Araújo, C. G. S. D. (2012). Peer review: a constantly-evolving scientific process. Arquivos

Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 98, e32-e35.

Findlaw's United States DC Circuit Case and opinions. Findlaw. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29,
2022, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1311814.html

USAFacts. (2021, April 22). Air Quality in the US since the passage of the Clean Air Act.
USAFacts. Retrieved April 28, 2022, from https://usafacts.org/articles/earth-day-air-
quality/