The FT has two fascinating stories today about up-and-coming Asian leadership contenders at vast, powerful and impenetrable institutions.

One concerns Kim Jong-eun, third son of Kim Jong-il, the leader of North Korea. The other is about Michael Evans, vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs and head of its Asia operations.

Compare the two behind-the-scenes manoevering. First, North Korea:

The long wait is over; the transition has begun. On Monday North Korean media for the first time uttered the name of Kim Jong-eun, as one of five new generals gazetted on the eve of a very rare meeting of party activists; the last such was 44 years ago.

Now, Goldman Sachs:

Goldman insiders say Mr Evans has become a regular presence in the bank’s New York headquarters, while also maintaining his management responsibilities in Asia. These people say Mr Evans has been seeking a more senior role in New York. Now speculation is building that Mr Evans is heading higher in the Goldman hierarchy, according to current and former bank executives, investors and clients interviewed by the Financial Times.

Of course, neither at Goldman nor in North Korea is it entirely possible to know what is going on. As Lucas Van Praag, Goldman’s PR, says firmly:

“There is absolutely no basis for speculation about any changes to our senior management team.”

Those are probably Kim Jong-il’s sentiments too. In fact, he is said to have told Wen Jiabao that it was “a false rumour from the west”.

However, Aidan Foster-Carter’s analysis of North Korea does identify one sharp distinction between it and Goldman:

And although the Workers’ Party of Korea nominally controls the Korean People’s Army, all those new epaulettes show which power structure really counts. Communism this is not; more a militarised but mendicant monarchy, now on its uppers.

Mendicant? On its uppers? That does not sound like Goldman Sachs.

The Federal Trade Commission complaining about a company allegedly touting false scientific benefits for its health products would not normally be interesting but the case of POM Wonderful, a Californian company that makes pomegranate juice drinks, is an exception.

My interest is due to the fact that I have witnessed Lynda Rae Resnick, one of POM’s owners, giving her full salesperson’s pitch for the wonders of her products in reducing the risks of heart disease and prostate cancer.

I saw her once on stage at the Milken Institute annual conference in Beverly Hills, an event where she is a regular speaker. She is also a trustee of the Milken Family Foundation, set up by Lowell and Michael Milken, the former Drexel Burnham Lambert financier who has had prostate cancer.

Here is what the foundation has to say about her:

Dubbed the “POM Queen,” she is behind the marketing success of POM Wonderful, the wildly popular 100 per cent pomegranate juice that created an entirely new product category. Resnick and her husband, Stewart, also own Teleflora, FIJI Water, Paramount Farms and Paramount Citrus Companies. Resnick continues to create and build successful brands for all their crops and companies, including the ground-breaking and healthy pistachio treat Everybody’s Nuts, Wonderful Pistachios and Cuties brand mandarin oranges.

I can testify that Ms Resnick, who also has a blog, is a persuasive marketer but the FTC is not happy about some of the company’s claims:

“Any consumer who sees POM Wonderful products as a silver bullet against disease has been misled,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.  “When a company touts scientific research in its advertising, the research must squarely support the claims made.  Contrary to POM Wonderful’s advertising, the available scientific information does not prove that POM Juice or POMx effectively treats or prevents these illnesses.”

This could cramp Ms Resnick’s style a bit at future Milken Institute conferences.

Update: POM Wonderful is not abashed. Accusing the FTC of “persecuting the pomegranate”, it says the commission is “acting beyond its jurisdiction, exceeding its authority, and creating a new regulatory scheme that attempts to treat our juice as a drug, which it is not.”