Comments on: FDA now officially useless?

FDA now officially useless?

eas98 — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 07:11:41 -0800

FDA now officially useless? Well, it's looking that way.. They are now about to allow unverified health claims on food labels. They say this is a good thing. I wonder... What function does the FDA have now if it's not to protect the consumer from wild and potentially false claims on their food products?

By: klik99

klik99 — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 07:17:51 -0800

well they still will stop anything life-threatening, but i thought that they already allowed unverified health claims. i got some gingko bilbao and it said on the front "improve your memory!" and on the back "this claim has been unverified by anyone anywhere" or something like that.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 08:03:07 -0800

What function does the FDA have now if it's not to protect the consumer from wild and potentially false claims on their food products? A place for political appointments to occupy space in the top offices until the next election cycle?

By: eas98

eas98 — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 08:38:23 -0800

...and on the back "this claim has been unverified by anyone anywhere"... Maybe now they won't even say that.. It says it on the label, it must be true... Right? I mean, that's what regulation is all about. ...moves the agency clearly in a direction favored by McClellan -- providing more information to consumers while regulating industry less. Sounds like a Republican to me. 'We don't need to regulate industry.. They're on our side.'

By: anapestic

anapestic — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 08:55:25 -0800

Without addressing the particular policy in question, I think that your first sentence seems unduly harsh and somewhat ridiculous. The FDA still does a lot of things besides regulate food labels. Prescription and over-the-counter drugs and medical devices are some of the other things that they regulate.

By: fried

fried — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 08:55:30 -0800

What function does the FDA have now if it's not to protect the consumer from wild and potentially false claims on their food products? What function? They probably keep you safer than any government agency. The protect you from more than you can imagine.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:07:36 -0800

Public service is, like, SO '90s...

By: dazed_n_confused

dazed_n_confused — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:13:18 -0800

The FDA press release does not lead to the same conclusion the FPP article does. Note that FDA will still require "support by a credible body of scientific evidence" . I'm with fried. The FDA is one of the more trustworthy government bodies.

By: gramcracker

gramcracker — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 11:31:29 -0800

The FDA has been crippled for far too long--it allows drug companies to fund and do all their own research on the safety of their drugs. And they also "frequently own and control the data collected in drug trials. Even the university scientists conducting the trial may not be given all the data they need. Companies sometimes publish data favorable to their product while suppressing unfavorable data." Now that's objectivity.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:49:17 -0800

Gosh, how we can we all say such bad things about the FDA? I mean, Bush is making it his goal to hire the most respectable and qualified people to be part of it, such as this guy he appointed yesterday to the Women's Health policy panel: an avowed anti-abortion fanatic who recommends "specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome." How can anything be useless with such 21st-century thinkers like THAT taking over?

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Fri, 27 Dec 2002 13:59:48 -0800

That's discouraging news for many, XQUZYPHYR. Planned Parenthood calls it another instance of ideology trumping science. (They also have much to say about Frist's record on reproductive rights.) In November, 11 other physicians were named to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs, and at least two others have religious agendas. Here's what one has to say: Dr. Joseph Stanford of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City advocates "natural family planning," e.g. the rhythm method, as the only acceptable form of contraception because "medicine is permeated with attitudes toward sexuality and fertility that are incompatible with Christian values of the sanctity of life, marriage, and procreation, attitudes that both reflect and perpetuate the recreational approach to sexuality found in our secular culture," reported HealthScoutNews. Um - if he only believes in the rhythm method, why is he an advisor to a committee on reproductive drugs?? Sigh. This is not a good time for women.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:41:24 -0800

This is not a good time for Americans. Well, not good for Americans who aren't conservative Christians.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Sat, 28 Dec 2002 17:46:12 -0800

The problem is the standards of testing have become so high in recent years costing 100's of millions for one chemical or drug that no one can afford to officially claim anything to be healthy anymore. Except Viagra. So the FDA is avoiding a lot of potential law suit entaglement by suggesting somthing to the public without the full battery of testing normally done. So it's a buyer beware situation but the FDA still lends a lot of credibility to the product they recommend.

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Sun, 29 Dec 2002 07:58:06 -0800

It's not good for Americans who are conservative Christians. They've been largely protected from their own folly for a very long time. The seeds of folly are being industriously sown. The harvest will be interesting and unpleasant.