Tell Me Again Why We Need The FDA

1. 61

   lady_love158posted 13 years ago

   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41694606/ns … _diseases/
   
   All you lefties will undoubtedly be screaming for more money for the FDA more staff more bureaucracy as what's needed to solve this FAILURE of the FDA to live up to its charter... frankly I think its a waste of money!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      thedietviewposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i agree the FDA is a total shame i have wrote some blog about other horrific substances they have allowed in our food please read up and avoid this for your own health because the FDA only cares about money not people!!!!
      
      http://hubpages.com/hub/MSG-IS-IT-SLOWLY-KILLING-US
      
      http://hubpages.com/hub/Evil-Aspartame

      replyreport
   2. 75

      Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The FDA has been disemboweled by politicians who are paid off by Big Pharm. Here's one take on it - from an interfaith religious site, no less.
      
      http://www.iccr.org/publications/examin … _phrma.htm

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         and yet we blame the companies for BUYING the FDA...
         
         ... why aren't we blaming the GOVERNMENT for running it improperly and selling it?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Because the companies ARE the government. It takes a lot of money to be elected to office in most cases, so presidents, congressmen, senators, governors, etc. tend to be very rich men, or at least friends with those who are. They get into office, pass laws that are friendly to whatever their business of origin, and appoint their friends to office to do the same.
            
            If you could figure out some way to keep the money out of politics, it would make sense to blame the government, but as it is, the wolf is inevitably going to end up guarding the sheep. Putting more stuff under local control won't help, because then they'll just go after local officials more (as in fact they already do, when it's in their best interests) and judicial checks and balances don't help because judges can be bought just as easily as anybody else.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I know a way to keep money out of politics -- get rid of politics!
               
               Use your 2nd amendment right to demand freedom! (oh jeez... here they come... the "YOU WANT TO KILL PEOPLE" idiots.)

               replyreport
   3. 70

      pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Duhh...cause when i go to grocery and buy can of peas, by god I want to find peas in the can when I open it. Duhhhhh.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well if you like I can pea in a can for you! Lol

         replyreport
   4. 62

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The notion of attempting to determine if a drug is useful or if it's just going to kill you, and thus, blocking the deadly, would seem like a relatively useful thing, no? 
      
      The same with food production, maybe? 
      
      However, as with all federal agencies, the FDA has become an agency of political utility, rather than a straightforward public service.    What I mean, is now the FDA is 'un-approving" previously approved drugs, based on price alone.   This is in preparation for Obamacare, and one of the cost-cutting moves.   By taking things off the "approved" list, the government would then not be liable to pay for them.  The first victim was the users of Avastin, who now find  themselves unable to get insurance to pay for the cancer treatment drug they're using to hopefully save their lives. 
      
      Some label this "mission creep", where the original purpose of an agency changes, morphs, transforms, or sometimes becomes so large that it finds itself at odds with itself, with parts of an agency working against other parts.   It is the basically inevitable result of political control of a utility type agency.   
      
      Our Constitution was written to prevent the federal government from actually engaging in these activities, believing the states were more capable than the federal government at this kind of involvement.   The states are generally quite responsive to the people in them, meaning that if mission creep becomes evident, the people of the state, through their respresentatives, would apply pressure to correct it.
      
      The federal government has run amok with countless alphabet soup agencies, with overlapping or even opposite purposes, most of which are unknown to the people, and whose oversight is solely up to Congress, which isn't known for its ability to actually conduct oversight in any meaningful fashion, even on itself, much less hundreds of entities your constituents will never contact you about. 
      
      If you wished to turn the FDA into a purely research facility, who studied the safety of medications, and left enforcement to the states... We'd be far, far better off.   Thus, the agency would be shielded from political intervention, as Congress and the administration would have no motivation to intervene, unless it became hopelessly incompetent, something that the states would notice very quickly.

      replyreport
2. 68

   Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

   We don't. What we need is an effective, independent, autonomous body, like the consumer reports that can do what the fda does without the bureaucracy and politics.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder if that Wisconsin firm was union?

      replyreport
   2. 72

      rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe we can hire the company that puts melamine additives in our food.  I think the company that painted the kids toys with lead based paints would be more appropriate.
      
      Private industry as a watchdog is like a hungry dog watching your dinner.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Part of the problem is that thanks to the revolving door, the FDA essentially IS private industry. Presidents consistently appoint people straight from Big Ag and Big Pharma to run it, and have for decades. Even if the FDA's actual scientists are saying something is potentially dangerous or needs more testing, the leaders can just ignore them and allow it anyway. The Obama administration just did this with GMO alfalfa, and the Bush administration did it with more things than I could list. At the end of their term, they go straight back to their industry jobs, usually with nice bonuses waiting for them for screwing over the American public so thoroughly.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I guess it all goes back to who is in charge and how did they get there.  To start with a good idea and watch it get sidetracked is very frustrating.
            
            Who appoints these officials and hires their compatriots is at the root of the problem.  Without a responsible governing body the chickens run amuck in these agencies and cause more harm than good.
            
            We can blame it on Bush or Obama or the weather but until "WE" the electorate can find some common ground there will only be change by which the next elected official makes good on his campaign favors.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The lesson to be learned, is to not hamstring yourself by having the federal government engage in these things, and have your state do it instead, so that the legislators, executives, and enforcement are strongly influenced by the people, rather than be insulated and insular, as they are in DC.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The problems I see with giving the regulation of the food and drug industries over to the states is the duplication of services resulting in higher costs let alone the bureaucracy.  Reciprosity of information would almost be non-existant and prosecution would tie up the actors as well as the states for years in court and civil proseedings.
                  
                  Better to fix what is there now by taking the politics out of it and making the actors responsible for their misdeeds.

                  replyreport
3. 75

   Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years ago

   ...and another example, from the Wall Street Journal...
   
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906079024695033.html

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You are making my point for me! More government is more opportunities for corruption and thus failure by the bureaucracies that were created to solve the problem of making sure our food and drugs are safe. The reality is we aren't getting anything of value for our money. Let's face it if a company makes an un safe or ineffective product it wont be in business for long!

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You are a wonderful idealist, lady_love, and I am sure you would be the first to buy an untested drug for your kids.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Untested by who? The government?  The same government that though aware of a serious problem for more than a year allowed it to continue? Yes I'd buy a drug that wasn't tested by the government! How many drugs are waiting for approval by the FDA but are already being prescribed else where?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               They are too funny.
               
               A total belief that government will solve all of their problems.
               
               Even though government has never solved any problems.
               
               Its actually a mental illness.

               replyreport
      2. 75

         Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         If a company (say Monsanto) wants influence at the FDA, they can get their PR man (Michael R Taylor) appointed to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Foods, at the FDA.
         
         http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffi … 196721.htm
         
         It appears that our foods and drugs ARE being approved by private interests, while we pay the salary of those who approve them.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            So we're no better off with these federal agencies! All they do is take tax payer money and redistribute it!

            replyreport
4. 89

   Will Apseposted 13 years ago

   The freedom to die unnecessarily must be written into the US constitution.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Will, you'd be amazed at the things people can find in the constitution to back their interests. It's a bit like the bible in that respect.

      replyreport
5. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   Suppose a house burned down in your town and there was a valid argument to be made that the fire department failed to repsond quickly enough.
   
   Would homeowners in town line up to ban the fire department or would they argue to reform it?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I thought the failure was due to the home owner being in arrears with his payments.

      replyreport
6. 75

   Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ha! I detect a resemblance to several hubbers whose names shall remain anonymous, one of whose initials are EGR.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         yeah, doing things like "forcing everyone to pay for a monopoly" sure is a GREAT thing!!
         
         I love the way that liberals completely distort the arguments beyond logic in order to make their points.
         
         Last thing I'll say about the house thing: Fire departments could EASILY EASILY EASILY be provided by a free-market. Easily.
         
         When everyone was talking about the recent GOVERNMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT SCREW UP news item, I repeatedly provided a model for a working privatized fire dept. And I'm not even making a profit off of it.
         
         Deal with the fact that you've been duped by your government.

         replyreport
7. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Tell Me Again Why We Need The FDA?
   
   The Food and Drug Administration is a necessary tool that should be counseled by government, only with regards to funding. It should not be part of or controlled by government.
   
   The employees should be honest in their assessments and all information should be accessible by the public.
   
   The agency itself has been corrupted for years, bought and paid for, by corporate interests.
   
   It is necessary, but only if it works properly to ensure the safety of the people against that of greedy corporate ideologies. Since it isn't looking out for the interests of the people properly, then reform or revamping of the system, should be considered. Too much government invention and the FDA presently is just one of it's tactics to control.

   replyreport
8. 61

   fundguruposted 13 years ago

   Just look around and it does not matter in which city, don´t you notice that there are many lets say heavy persons? Well this comes from the hormons in your meat and this unfortunately also affects your genes, so you pass it to the next generation.
   
   Also ask among neighbours and friends how many of them in age suddenly have cancer, even if they never smoked. You will be surprised. Also this comes from all the pesticides and chemicals in your food, as well in clothes and furniture and also affects your DNA.
   
   And not speak from all the things that are in your drinking water.
   
   Within just 2-3 generations your entire gene pool will be affected and then continously the life expectation of the US will decline.
   
   We call this soft war. A nation that is so corrupt via Lobbyism is simply an easy victim.
   
   Have you never asked why the FDA allows so many dangerous and toxic things in your food? Have you never asked why in Europe many things are forbidden that are allowed in the US?
   
   Think about it. You are all victims.

   replyreport
9. 75

   Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years ago

   The FDA redistributes wealth? I'd say more like the FDA and pols of both parties are the recipients of corporate wealth.
   
   Why not outlaw lobbying and campaign contributions -- by constitutional amendment, if necessary. After a few years to clean out the leftover rot, we could let honest representatives decide how big gov't should be and whether the FDA is necessary.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Campaigns require money and money is a way of making one's voice heard. Not all lobbies are bad. There are grass roots lobbies that serve the publics interest. What we need is term limits. We have to make the career politician extinct!

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         There is a lot of truth in your statement and the money for campaigns can come from individual donors with a strict amount limit. I think term limits are OK as long as it is fashioned so that some experienced pols remain around. A revolving door with crooks replacing crooks won't help.
         
         Term limits, no lobbying and campaign finance limits. A good Rx for for everyone.
         
         If the money is removed from the system, then the greedy will look elsewhere to enrich themselves.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think its possible to remove the money... but term limits will prevent the system from corrupting the well intentioned new comers and will limit the tine one can be crooked. Experience in politics is over sold... any one of us if willing would do a fine job.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Experience may be oversold but you'll still need a few leaders who know the ropes. Not 10 termers who rake in the pork for their constituents, I agree. 2 or 3 terms should be enough IMO.
               
               To get the money out of politics will require an informed voter who is continuously involved and who practices the same honesty that is expected from our elected officials.
               
               I think it's doable.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree... education is key!

                  replyreport
10. 78

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    The fight to get the money out of politics took a huge hit with the Supreme Court ruling. Very distressing.
    
    weholdthesetruths -- In theory I think your idea of state enforcement is a good one. But realistically, our states today are in bad (or worse) financial shape than the feds. With all the competing demands for state resources, is watchdogging businesses a top priority? And, we have seen this here in CA -- the more regulations you impose on business the less "business friendly" your business climate. Businesses will only put up with so much red tape and hoops to jump through before they relocate to a state that's less onerous.
    Product safety seems like a big old can of (moldy, cancerous) worms.
    I believe the function of the FDA is necessary.
    But, I believe the FDA has,as has been said here, overreached its usefulness. Does FDA approval on a drug mean it's safe? No! It means there will more than likely be a recall in about 5 years -- so take it at your own risk!!!

    replyreport
11. 78

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    It's Evan G Rogers!!!!
    Evan -- I hope they're paying you royalties for the use of your likeness

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Who's using my what?
       
       I wish I knew who you were responding to --- use "reply" at the end of the other person's post instead of "post a reply" at the bottom of the forum so that your posts will be in DIRECT response to the person you're replying to.
       
       The FDA was poorly managed (surprise surprise), and then the government basically sold it off to private companies.
       
       Yet, everyone is blaming the companies! Blame the government!

       replyreport
12. 78

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Hi Evan.
    To clarify: I was replying to the picture of the man with his house on fire refusing help from the publicly funded fire department.
    And Ralph Deeds wrote that he detected a resemblance to several hubbers, one of whose initials are EGR.
    That would be you -- our most famous LIBERTARIAN!!!
    And so I was teasing you that if a cartoonist is using your "likeness" in his/her work, you should be paid royalties...
    Sorry for the confusion.
    And I can see how that little libertarian interlude didn't quite flow with the rants about why the FDA is all f'd up!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       no probs.
       
       This is off topic -- is there a reason why you don't reply to posts? You always reply to the forum, but not individual posts. It's always difficult to find out who you're replying to.
       
       no disrespect intended.

       replyreport
13. 70

    thisisoliposted 13 years ago

    The FDA is good in principal, however everytime I hear about it there seems to be another big problem with it.  I think a complete overhaul from the top down would work wonders on cleaning up corruption etc, but then again the same could be said for the entire US political system. (Before any Americans get too angry about this statement I also think the British government could do with a similar treatment).

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       i would argue that it's bad in principle.
       
       Anytime you steal money from people under the threat of violence, it's bad.

       replyreport
14. 65

    Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

    We need the FDA to protect the public against ineffective and harmful drugs. It's not nearly as effective as it should be because it has to a certain extent been co-opted by the drug and medical device industry. Without it we would still be in the era of patent medicines and Lydia Pinkham's, not to mention Thalidomide.

    replyreport