I don't know. There is a sort of pitifully amusing article about cherry growers and the FDA in an LEF Magazine. Among other things the FDA claims that a website is a label. LOL.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_cover_cherries_01.htm Unlike the cranberry situation, however, the recent attack on cherries is aimed at statements made on websites not linked to labels. Since the FDA has no authority to dictate website content-which is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission-I asked the agency by what authority it was threatening to seize property and stop people from selling cherry products. The agency responded that websites are part of the legal definition of "label." A reading of the legal definition, however, reveals that a label is, well, a label-something stuck to a product or its package. The definition also allows Food and Drug to regulate things that come with the product, such as a package insert. But no mention is made of websites.*
See, the FDA had also gotten upset with Ocean Spray cranberry juice, but in that case the website was listed on the label.
Another strange thing is that the author of the LEF article isn't listed, saying that this is too controversial. Is that for some sort of dramatic effect? I mean, what would the FDA do to the person?