MetaFilter posts tagged with FDA

Can I eat this?

MartinWisse — Mon, 20 May 2013 13:12:59 -0800

How to ensure food and drink water safety during a flood or other natural disaster, courtesy of the FDA and the USDA.

Even better than the real thing?

fiercecupcake — Sat, 18 May 2013 11:32:15 -0800

Widespread fraud has been discovered in the case of an Indian generic drug manufacturer that makes generic Lipitor (atorvastatin calcium) and many other drugs. Ranbaxy has "pleaded guilty to seven federal criminal counts of selling adulterated drugs with intent to defraud." Many people rely on generic drugs to be able to afford drug therapy. The basic principle of generics is based on bioequivalence, but do all generics provide comparable levels of bioavailability to their brand-name counterparts? Besides Ranbaxy and Lipitor, other widely used generics from different companies have been affected lately: generic Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate), an atypical antipsychotic, generic Wellbutrin (buproprion), an atypical antidepressant, and birth control pills. Here is an FDA listing of currently authorized generic drugs.

According to FDA standards, the sauce is technically not “cheese"

Chrysostom — Mon, 13 May 2013 07:42:31 -0800

The history of baseball stadium nachos.

An investigative reporter investigates

spamandkimchi — Sat, 11 May 2013 15:11:19 -0800

Did my wife's cosmetics give her breast cancer? During her first round of chemo in 2009, some volunteers at the hospital came calling with a little red bag [from the Look Good Feel Better program] that contained products from Clinique, Estée Lauder, and Del Laboratories. Upon reviewing the contents of her bag, she realized that several of the products contained parabens — chemicals that mimic estrogen and that according to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics are linked to cancer. (previously, previouslier, previousliest in AskMe)

The Embedded Dangers of Untested Stem Cell Cosmetics

latkes — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:25:44 -0800

Six and a half hours of surgery later, he and his colleagues had dug out small chunks of bone from the woman's eyelid and tissue surrounding her eye, which was scratched but largely intact. The clicks she heard were the bone fragments grinding against one another.

"Especially with the country in great need of donation, science should speak louder than stigma in determining who can help."

flex — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:10:29 -0800

Tainted: Why Gay Men Still Can't Donate Blood - "Since 1983, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines have disqualified men who have ever had sex with men (MSM) from donating blood... Uneven application of exclusion to at-risk individuals suggests that risk aversion disproportionately impacts MSMs. For example, a non-MSM individual who has had sexual contact with a commercial sex worker or HIV-positive partner is deferred for only twelve months... The fact that the U.S. upholds a lifetime ban on MSM donation while Australian policy allows MSM individuals to donate a year or less after contact reveals a glaring discrepancy. Both ethics and science point to a flaw in FDA policy. That I could have had sex with 365 partners this year and be a perfectly fine candidate for donating blood, while the MSM next to me wouldn't qualify, betrays a faulty line of logic." *Macleans - Who's afraid of a gay man's blood? We are:

"Starting in November [2011], the United Kingdom will join South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and other countries that have lifted the lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM) and instead impose a 12-month deferral period after oral or anal sexual contact with a same-sex partner has occurred. This rule will apply whether or not a condom was used. The policy change is based on the findings of the independent Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues, and Organs, which reviewed the evidence on donor selection criteria, taking into account improvements in blood testing, monitoring from countries with shortened deferral periods, and donors’ compliance with the ban. They concluded that the science “no longer support[s] the permanent exclusion of men who have had sex with men.” ...In Sweden, Japan, and Australia, the wait is one year. In New Zealand, it’s five. In South Africa, six months from a man’s last same-sex encounter is enough. In Italy, the restriction lasts for four months after sex with a new partner. Canada—along with the US, France and many other countries—continue to refuse MSM donors all together. Why this variation?"

*Wikipedia - Gay male blood donor controversy *Red Cross Favors Amending Blood Donation Policy by Gay and Bisexual Men: "The FDA maintains that gay and bisexual men should not be allowed to donate blood, but the Red Cross believes there should only be a 12 month deferral" *CNN - As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined:

While he is a gay man, Adam Denney thinks he would be the perfect candidate to donate blood. He doesn't use IV drugs. He practices safer sex. He even educates people on how to prevent new HIV infections as a regular volunteer educator with AIDS Volunteers Inc. in Lexington, Kentucky. He thinks his exclusion is unfair. "Yes, gay men are still a high-risk community, but so are minority women, and there are no standards prohibiting them from donating. There would be rightful outrage against that kind of blanket population ban," Denney said. "I am banned based on one reason only, my sexual orientation. It's totally discriminatory."

*Buzzfeed - Hurricane Puts A Blood Ban Back In The Spotlight: "Hurricane Sandy means an urgent need for blood donations. But gay men still can't donate." (previously: the ban on blood donation)

In the Public Interest....

zarq — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 06:05:14 -0800

Earlier this year, six scientists and doctors filed a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration alleging that the FDA had secretly monitored their personal e-mail accounts after they (legally) warned Congress that the "agency was approving medical devices that they believed posed unacceptable risks to patients." The agency said it had done so to "investigate allegations that the employees had leaked confidential information to the public." At the time, the FDA indicated their computer monitoring was limited to five scientists. But now, the New York Times is reporting that "what began as a narrow investigation" "quickly grew in mid-2010 into a much broader campaign to counter outside critics of the agency’s medical review process.". NYT Document Archive

FDA Moves to Reduce Antibiotic Use in Livestock

MonkeyToes — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:32:32 -0800

Worried about the widespread use of antibiotics used in the raising of steer, pigs and poultry, and fearing the rise of antibiotic-resistant illness, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began the process of withdrawing its approval for the non-medical use of penicillin and tetracyclines (scribd, posted by Wired magazine's Maryn McKenna in conjunction with one of her posts on this issue). That was in 1977. The FDA stopped pursuing the process, and antibiotics have continued to be given in feed. But a recent court order may allow the FDA to oversee a major change to the system. In the last few years, 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. have been purchased for agricultural purposes, says a report from the FDA. Given to healthy animals, the drugs reduce the time it takes to get them to market weight and can prevent disease arising as a result of their living conditions; consequently, most of the meat and poultry in the U.S. food supply have been raised on antibiotic-laden feed. Sick animals receive extra antibiotics. These practices are common and widespread, even in the wake of a confirmed antibiotic-resistant, feed-related staph germ that may affect half of the American meat supply. In late March of 2012, Judge Theodore H. Katz of the Southern District of New York issued an order that potentially cleared the way for the FDA to rescind its approval of animal feed containing antibiotics, and to continue the process it began in 1977. (More about the lawsuit at issue here. You can read the order here; McKenna's Scribd posting, as above). The FDA may now compel feed makers to justify the safety of antibiotics, or it may rescind its approval for their use. A few weeks later, the FDA confirmed its stance: "Because it is well established that all uses of antimicrobial drugs, in both humans and animals, contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance, it is important to use these drugs only when medically necessary." In the same press release, it also explained its new proposed actions on antimicrobial resistance: the implementation of "a voluntary strategy to promote the judicious use in food-producing animals of antibiotics that are important in treating humans." It also published three documents in the Federal Register, in order to help agricultural producers understand its recommendations: "A final guidance for industry (.pdf), The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals, that recommends phasing out the agricultural production use of medically important drugs and phasing in veterinary oversight of therapeutic uses of these drugs. "A draft guidance(.pdf), open for public comment, which will assist drug companies in voluntarily removing production uses of antibiotics from their FDA-approved product labels; adding, where appropriate, scientifically-supported disease prevention, control, and treatment uses; and changing the marketing status to include veterinary oversight. "A draft proposed Veterinary Feed Directive regulation (.pdf), open for public comment, that outlines ways that veterinarians can authorize the use of certain animal drugs in feed, which is important to make the needed veterinary oversight feasible and efficient." As far as shoppers are concerned, this may be an idea whose time has come. Consumers Union, which is the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, recently issued the results of its survey (.pdf) on "what consumers think about reducing antibiotic use in meat and poultry production." Among the findings: "[A] majority of respondents (86%) agreed that customers should be able to buy meat and poultry raised without antibiotics at their local supermarkets... "The majority of respondents (see table) were extremely or very concerned about issues related to the use of antibiotics in animal feed." It's worth noting that medicated feed isn't new. Dr. LeGear's Poultry Prescription is one early example. Found, oddly enough, on the FDA's Flickr stream (and, as the FDA notes under this photo, "Dr. LeGear’s labeling of this veterinary drug from the early 1920s perhaps learned from the experience of its Hog Prescription, seized several times in 1920 for misbranded claims to cure cholera and other diseases.").

Re: Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0149

TangerineGurl — Wed, 30 May 2012 17:21:40 -0800

FDA Rules Corn Syrup Can't Change Its Name To Corn Sugar "Consequently, the use of the term “corn sugar” for HFCS would suggest that HFCS is a solid, dried, and crystallized sweetener obtained from corn. Instead, HFCS is an aqueous solution sweetener derived from corn after enzymatic hydrolysis of cornstarch, followed by enzymatic conversion of glucose (dextrose) to fructose. Thus, the use of the term “sugar” to describe HFCS, a product that is a syrup, would not accurately identify or describe the basic nature of the food or its characterizing properties. As such, using the term “sugar” would not be consistent with the general principles governing common or usual names under 21 CFR 102.5. "

"It's OK to eat cooked meat that's been glued."

empath — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:07:50 -0800

What's inside your filet minion could kill you. -- Well, it probably won't, but would you order that $15 steak if you knew it was restructured out of glued-together stew meat?

Psychotropic medication efficacy and publication bias

OmieWise — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:47:55 -0800

Antipsychotics: "The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently."
Antidepressants: "We found a bias toward the publication of positive results. Not only were positive results more likely to be published, but studies that were not positive, in our opinion, were often published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome. [...] Using both approaches, we found that the efficacy of this drug class is less than would be gleaned from an examination of the published literature alone. According to the published literature, the results of nearly all of the trials of antidepressants were positive. In contrast, FDA analysis of the trial data showed that roughly half of the trials had positive results." Previously Previous news about antipsychotic efficacy from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study.

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense

Blasdelb — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:17:54 -0800

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense: Report looks at methods of corporate abuse, suggests steps toward reform [Full Report (PDF)] [Executive Summary (PDF)] The report includes telling examples of Suppressing Research,

a USDA microbiologist was prevented from publishing research showing that emissions from industrial hog farms contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria

Dr. Ingacio Chapela of the University of California–Berkeley and graduate student David Quist published an article in Nature showing that DNA from genetically modified corn was contaminating native Mexican corn. The research spurred immediate backlash. Nature received a number of letters to the editor, including several comments on the Internet from "Mary Murphy" and "Andura Smetacek" accusing the scientists of bias. The backlash prompted Nature to publish an editorial agreeing that the report should not have been published. However, investigators eventually discovered that the comments from Murphy and Smetacek originated with The Bivings Group, a public relations firm that specializes in online communications and had worked for Monstanto. Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek were found to be fictional names.

"Boots commissioned Dr. Betty Dong, a scientist at the University of California–San Francisco, to test the effects of Synthroid, a replacement for thyroid hormone. Boots hoped to reveal that despite its high price, Synthroid was more effective than similar drugs. The company closely monitored the research, and when Dong found that the drug was no more effective than its competitors, instructed her not to publish the results. When she refused to comply, Boots threatened to sue. The company relented only after several years, during which consumers continued to pay for the costly product."

Corrupting Advisory Panels:

"A few weeks before a CDC advisory panel met to discuss revising federal lead standards, two scientists with ties to the lead industry were added to the panel. The committee voted against tightening the standards."

"ReGen Biologics attempted to gain FDA approval for clinical trials of Menaflex, a device it developed to replace knee cartilage. After an FDA panel rejected the device, the company enlisted four members of Congress from its home state of New Jersey to influence the evaluation process. In December 2007, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Robert Menendez, and Representative Steve Rothman wrote to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach asking him to personally look into Menaflex. Soon thereafter, the commissioner met with ReGen executives and heeded the company's advice to have Dr. Daniel Shultz, head of the FDA's medical devices division, oversee a new review. The FDA fast-tracked and approved the product despite serious concerns from the scientific community."

Ghostwriting Articles:

"A 2011 analysis found evidence of corporate authorship in research articles on a variety of drugs, including Avandia, Paxil, Tylenol, and Vioxx."

"From 1998 to 2007, Pfizer discreetly facilitated the publication of 15 case studies, six case reports, and nine letters to the editor to boost off-label use of Neurontin, a drug prescribed to treat seizures in people who have epilepsy and nerve pain. The number of patients taking the drug rose from 430,000 to 6 million, making it one of Pfizer's most profitable products. An investigation found that Pfizer had failed to publish negative results, selectively reported outcomes, and excluded specific patients from analysis. [Most importantly] Pfizer failed to note that the drug increased the risk of suicide.'

Purchasing Rigged Research

'To counter a study that found that formaldehyde caused cancer in rats, a formaldehyde company commissioned its own study. That study-which found no association between the chemical and cancer-exposed only one-third the number of rats to formaldehyde for half as long as the original study. A formaldehyde association quickly publicized the results and argued before the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that they indicated "no chronic health effects from exposure to the level of formaldehyde normally encountered in the home""

Creating Front Organizations

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit that targets dietary guidelines recommended by the FDA, other government agencies, medical associations, and consumer advocacy organizations. The center has run ads and owns a website that accuses government agencies of overregulation, and has published articles claiming to refute evidence that high salt intake and other dietary guidelines are based on inadequate science. The center was founded with a $600,000 grant from Philip Morris, but has also received funding from Cargill, National Steak and Poultry, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, and Sutter Home Winery.

Purchasing Support from Existing Organizations

In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry accepted a $1 million donation from Coca-Cola. That year, the group claimed that "scientific evidence is certainly not clear on the exact role that soft drinks play in terms of children's oral disease." The statement directly contradicted the group's previous stance that "consumption of sugars in any beverage can be a significant factor…that contributes to the initiation and progression of dental caries."

Secretary Sebelius Makes History

DWRoelands — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:46:21 -0800

For the first time ever, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, refusing Wednesday to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, including to young teenagers. President Obama has defended the decision as "the father of two daughters", but asserts that he did not get involved in the process. Editorial reactions range from "the politics of birth control have trumped science and sound public policy"(New York Times) and "We Are All an 11-year-old Girl -- And She Is Pissed" to "Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was right" (Family Research Council).

"Rice Pudding. Milk. Bread and Butter. Tea. Coffee. A Little Borax."

liketitanic — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:14:26 -0800

But beyond the disgust element was another more important question concerning borax: was it actually safe to eat? This troubling issue was the reason why squad members were imbibing the compound at Christmas, the reason for the Poison Squad experiments themselves. Established by a famously outspoken, crusading chemist from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Harvey Washington Wiley, the squads were also meant to answer another, larger question: were manufacturers actually poisoning the food supply?

Avastin and the power of hope

metaBugs — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 03:49:51 -0800

Based on a lack of evidence for efficacy, "an FDA panel unanimously voted to revoke its approval of Avastin (bevacizumab) for breast cancer. The decision evoked cheers from some groups and jeers from others. At least one group derided the decision as the work of a 'death panel'". An interesting article on the withdrawal of a "miracle" drug from a section of the market, explaining the reasoning behind the decision and discussing the reaction from patients, many of whom believe -- despite the evidence -- that the drug was actually helping them. I thought that the New England Journal of Medicine "Perspectives" article linked from the post is particularly interesting, although I'm not sure how clear it'll be for non-biomed people.

The Problem with Tamiflu, Relenza, Swine Flu, GSK, and the FDA.

Sticherbeast — Tue, 10 May 2011 17:37:20 -0800

Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies! (snyrbl)

Please Support Genetic Freedom

Jason Malloy — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:28:29 -0800

Should you be allowed unrestricted knowledge of your own genetic makeup? Or should your doctor be the one to decide how much you can know about your own genes? Currently direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies (such as 23andMe) allow consumers to discover which genes they have inherited. But some influential people are arguing that the general public is harmed by the ability to freely access this type of information. The American Medical Association is urging the FDA to make it so that genomic information is only available to a person through a personal physician or medical counselor. As a counterpoint the geneticists at the Genomes Unzipped website provide a six point statement on why People Have A Right To Access Their Own Genetic Information. The Genomics Law Report website summarizes the most recent FDA conference on DTC genetic testing, and notes that you should make your voice heard if this issue is important to you. Here is additional information on how to share your opinions on the issue with the FDA or congress.

Premature birth-preventing drug faces cost spike

disillusioned — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:47:50 -0800

Progesterone caproate injections have been used to reduce the likelihood of premature births in at-risk pregnant women for years. Up until now, the drug was custom-compounded by wholesale and specialist pharmacies, legally, but without federal approval. These injections cost between $5 and $15 a dose and were regularly reimbursed by insurance companies and Medicaid. Last month, the FDA announced their approval of a commercially produced version of the compound, to be marketed under the brand name Makena by a company called KV Pharmaceuticals. No stranger to controversy and trouble, KV barely survived a rash round of layoffs and wrongful termination lawsuits. Their former chief executive now faces criminal charges surrounding the company's failure to notify the FDA that they were producing oversized morphine tablets. (He could also do for a shave, it appears.) Now, KV has announced that the new drug will be available at a cost of $1,500 per dose, bringing the total pregnancy term cost of treatment to $25,000-$30,000, from its former cost of $250-$300, a 100-fold increase—but it gets worse... The FDA granted Makena ophan drug status, allowing them exclusive rights to produce the compound. As such, KV has sent letters to pharmacies manufacturing the non-commercial compound warning them to stop or face FDA action. In what can only be characterized as a bit of cognitive dissonance, new KV Pharmaceutical chief Gregory J. Divis Jr "said the cost is justified to avoid the estimated $50,000 cost of mental and physical disabilities that can come with very premature births." "Makena can help offset some of those costs. These moms deserve the opportunity to have the benefits of an FDA-approved Makena."

There is excessive lead in the nuclear sludge

ardgedee — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:09:16 -0800

Toxic Waste is toxic.

Warning: Cigarettes are addictive.

Mister Fabulous — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:06:55 -0800

The FDA has unveiled new graphic warnings for cigarette packages, including for the first time images that might depict dead bodies, cancer patients and diseased lungs. You can see all 36 new images here. (13MB PDF). These warnings appear to be similar by those to our Canadian brethren.

Wasting Taxpayer Resources to Persecute the Pomegranate, or Pom Not-So-Wonderful?

filthy light thief — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:32:51 -0800

POM Wonderful may not be so wonderful, but that might not be so surprising, given the history of Stewart and Lynda Resnick. The couple are involved with much more than pomegranate juice: they own Fiji Water, pesticide manufacturer Suterra, Paramount Agribusiness (source of citris, well-known pistachios and other nuts), and former owners of the Franklin Mint. This round with the Resnicks started in February 2010, with a warning from the FDA, which lead to a confusing bit of restraining order requested, then soon after requested to be withdrawn (with fears of pushing the First Amendment too far). That phase is past, but POM Wonderful is now stating they believe "very strongly in its first amendment rights to communicate the promising results," results which look similar to placebos taken by control subjects. The FTC is not impressed.

Olive Oil in the U.S. - A Smeared Reputation

VikingSword — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:55:05 -0800

A lack of federal rules has made the nation the dumping ground for cheap, adulterated and even dangerous oils. With many consumers in the U.S. becoming ill after consuming "olive oil", the USDA is finally moving to create standards defining what is "virgin olive oil". These are supposed to come out in the fall. Except 'the new rules are voluntary — not mandatory — so the prospect of more slick shenanigans continues'. Meanwhile, the FDA 'which oversees most food-label accuracy issues, said the agency does not regularly test olive oils for adulteration, and that it relies on tips about problems from the public, trade groups and others'. Science has been uncovering the possible cardiovascular health benefits of olive oil for a long time now. But there is also cancer, especially breast cancer, as well as numerous other conditions, such as ulcerative colitis. The Mayo Clinic has recommended extra virgin olive oil as having the most health promoting compounds. So you would think that olive oil standards would have been defined in the U.S. a long time ago. Indeed, such efforts [warning: pdf] go back to 1948. Standards for virgin olive oil have been compared between U.S. and Australian and New Zealand. But in the end, in the U.S., whatever the standards adopted, 'companies only have to follow these regulations if their products have the federal seal of approval on their labels, or if retailers buying their oil require it. "It's like saying you have to stop at stop signs, but there are no cops at the corner," said Paul Vossen, a University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisor for Sonoma County. "Standards are a good start, but enforcement is important."'

Personally, I'm Holding Out for the "Sauron" Lens

zarq — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:31:16 -0800

The New York Times reports that anime-style "Circle" (or "Big Eye") lenses are currently gaining in popularity, thanks to Lady Gaga's Bad Romance video. Circle, or "Big Eye" contact lenses have been available from online retailers since 2008. They create an anime-style "Eoljjang" (or "Ulzzang") look for the wearer by making the iris of the eye appear larger. Previously on Metafilter: background on the Korean ulzzang trend. Per the NYTimes link: These lenses might be just another beauty fad if not for the facts that they are contraband and that eye doctors express grave concern over them. It is illegal in the United States to sell any contact lenses — corrective or cosmetic — without a prescription, and no major maker of contact lenses in the United States currently sells circle lenses.

Should we test drugs on pregnant women?

KathrynT — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:37:26 -0800

Should we start doing medical research on pregnant women? In the wake of the H1N1 epidemic, in which pregnant women had a disproportionately higher risk of death, the question of including pregnant women in clinical trials has begun to be tentatively breached. Ever since the thalidomide catastrophe, pregnant women have been virtually excluded from clinical research. But at what cost? Pregnant women end up gritting their teeth and toughing it out without medication through conditions ranging from the common cold and morning sickness to migraines and mental illnesses, and physicians operate largely in the dark when it comes to managing more serious conditions. We can do animal studies, but they aren't always useful; pregnant mammal studies were done with thalidomide and found no problems, for example. (Thalidomide has two optical isomers, one of which is teratogenic and one of which is not. Humans are one of a small number of species which easily converts one isomer to the other in vivo.) We can use computer modeling, a field called computational pharmacokinetics, but the results of such modeling are only as accurate as our models -- and gaining accurate data about human placental transfer is as fraught with ethical minefields as anything else related to human pregnancy. The FDA uses a piecemeal approach to grade drugs for safety in pregnancy, combining cohort studies and animal trials, resulting in a "best guess" system in which very few drugs are identified as truly dangerous (class X) but even fewer are identified as genuinely safe (class A). The New England Journal of Medicine offers another solution, outlining a possible ethical framework for including pregnant women in double-blind clinical trials.

The Ban on Blood Donation

zarq — Wed, 26 May 2010 11:35:07 -0800

Are the Rules That Determine Who Can Donate Blood Discriminatory? Canadian AIDS researchers Dr. Mark Wainberg and Dr. Norbert Gilmore say that while the ban on blood donation from men who have sex with other men may have been ethically and scientifically justified in the 1980's, it no longer makes sense. (CMAJ.) Even though the US FDA reaffirmed their long-standing ban in 2007, they plan to revisit the policy in June. Background Currently gay and other men who have sex with men in Canada and the US, as well as the UK and a number of other countries, are permanently banned from giving blood. The prohibition in North America was introduced in 1983. Thousands of individuals were infected with HIV after receiving blood products infected with the virus before effective screening was developed.
Also: Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977. Those who say they have are permanently banned from donating. The FDA said those men are at increased risk of infection by HIV that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. In March 2006, the Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America’s Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA.
And: In the CMAJ article, Wainberg and colleagues noted that several industrialized countries, including Argentina, Australia, Japan, and Sweden, have implemented a shorter one-year period of deferral.
More on the study from the Globe and Mail, National Post and Toronto Sun From 2000: Should Gay Men be Allowed to Donate Blood?