Hmm, that doesn't seem like rent-seeking behavior though -- all these folks are still going to have stable jobs whether cheerios are a drug or not. Is it purely instinctive for humans to strive to increase their regulatory muscle whenever possible? Or do people with this trait simply get selected for in politics?
They still will have jobs, certainly, but since their bureau probably gets funding based on how much work they do, they have to seem busy. Even if the work is penalizing a firm for making a (presumably) true claim. Since the Cheerios promotion violated some rule, they have a technically valid excuse.
Of course, the cost to the person who issued the letter was close to zero, so why not be a stickler?
Added: The point of keeping high funding is to grow one's number of inferiors, which is evidence of social dominence.
I found this letter from the US Food and Drug Administration to General Mills interesting. It appears on the surface that the agency is trying to protect the American public from ungrounded persuasion, yet I can't find anything in the letter claiming that GM has made an unsupported statement.
Does anyone understand this better than I do?