It is the same stuff
They have posted it every year for at LEAST five years that I know of
10 The FDA agricultural research service is NOT qualified to do human
trials on ANYTHING
2) The so-called "study" is a few people for a short time
3) The results are not accepted by any major peer-reviewed journal

Don't take their word for it.
(Don't take Ted's either.)
Check for recent posts with Cinnamon in the subject line.
Some have links to more details.

Oh dear, we don't learn.  It is a report on completely new research.  The
FDA didn't do the study, a university did.  The study was clearly said to
be preliminary with more research to come.  The research is in a widely
known peer reviewed journal and a major source for biomed folk in the
field of diabetes.  There is a great difference between opinion and fact,
all the facts above were presented before, which makes the below now verge
on deception and away from the area of opinion.

Consult these for additional information:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99994413

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/12/3215?etoc

Learning to read more completely is what is required.  Anderson was the
last of the names on those doing the research at a university as reported
in the research abstract as published, not the principle researcher.  
Such research is the typical course of a new area for any new prospective
medical substance, there is nothing new or out of the ordinary in this
example.  Bio med companies, and the federal government routinely patent
newly discovered substances which have potential commercial application.  
The National Institutes of Health and Cancer, etc. all do exactly the same
and are also tax funded, nothing new here either. Your's is the burden to
demonstrate that the ADA journal is not reputable and/or peer reviewed;
quite apart from your now evident self interest for face saving.  The New
Scientist is a news service/publication which reports on research.

Oh dear, we also don't read carefully before going off half cocked.  The
remark about "new" was in responce to your claim the research reported in
the dec '03 ADA journal is only repackaged info being rehashed.  Desperate
grasping is so painful to watch.  To recap, the new study was a human
trial, previous research being done in vitro and with rats; thus making it
completely new; as reported.

Standard citation practice as in the ADA journal and other journals puts
the principle researcher in order of listing, in this instance for the
human trial research Anderson is last:
Alam Khan, MS, PHD^1^,2^,3, Mahpara Safdar, MS1^,2, Mohammad Muzaffar
Ali Khan, MS, PHD^1^,2, Khan Nawaz Khattak, MS1^,2 and Richard A.
Anderson, PHD^3

And we can conclude exactly what, any explanation having by definition to
include all those many other scores of government employees who also get
them yearly; but not to mention the same done by those in the private
biomed companies?  And of course all those folk in publically financed
universities who get them based on work done with government grants must
be considered also.  Because this is standard practice we should conclude
exactly what, least we misunderstand the practice?  All of this having
absolutely no reflecction on the question of the effectivness of consuming
cinnamon, but a handy quick step to avoid by misdirection.

I wonder how much the lobby paid to spice up their sales?

--
Menthu, Wonders how many eggs one can eat now.

It is certainly astringent when taken in some water by itself.  
Intrestingly however, when mixed in hot, from the tap, water and mixed
thoroughly and left to stand for a bit; it takes on a gel consistancey
several times the original amount.  This suggests it is also a water
soluable fiber.

About adding it to the filter, as you suspect, it does better when mixed
with the grind.  Also, spreading it thinly as a ring around the edge of
the filter allows the water to flow and still get the good stuff out,
because it is a powder the water quickly soaks it and leaches it.  With it
alone in the filter you set up a situation where it quickly turned into a
gel uniformly over the filter and soon was a barrier to water flow.  In
one report, one of the researchers dipped sticks of it into his beverage
each time he wanted to leach some from it.  The latter seems a hit and
miss because one doesn't know about controling amounts etc.