Check this out. It just goes to show that the FDA is corrupt and has been for the longest time.
It finally admits yet again it's actions have been killing people.
Good Evening, Cagsil. You provide another interesting topic for conversation. Thanks.
I often see accusations in the form of a question when there is very little or no evidence to support them. Your link leads to an article on Naturalnews.com that merely says the FDA admitted that chicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic. I am surprised that the article does not support the title of the OP statement about corruption and protectionism at the FDA. Furthermore, I am shocked to learn the statement about the FDA "finally admits yet again it's actions have been killing people" is both false and absurd. Since none of these issues are even mentioned in the article, someone must have fabricated them to make some point. The article does not even mention the arsenic levels typically found in chicken meat so it is impossible to weigh the risks, if there are any!
Sources who do not earn a living from ads promoting or selling potions, herbs, or roots present a more balanced and rational picture:
1. Are there health risks associated with arsenic?
The Department of Health in the State of Minnesota notes, "Most people consume about 6 micrograms of inorganic arsenic per day from food and water…very small amounts are not likely to be harmful… As the level of arsenic increases, however, there is some slight increase in the likelihood of chronic health effects from contact over many years. This could include a very small increase in the risk of cancer, and cardiovascular disease. These diseases are widespread, have many risk factors and take many years to develop - - so the part that environmental exposure to arsenic plays in the risk of disease is generally quite small. The EPA has set a limit of 0.01 parts per million (ppm) for arsenic in drinking water." (Italics added to original) (1)
2. What does "risk of cancer" mean?
In the Glossary of Terms published by The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, cancer risk is defined as a theoretical risk for getting cancer if exposed to a substance every day for 70 years (a lifetime exposure). The true risk might be lower. (2)
3. What is the causal relationship between arsenic and cancer?
A paper published through the World Health Organization reports the evidence is "weak" for most forms of cancer. "Conclusions on the causality of the relationship between arsenic exposure and other health effects are less clear-cut. The evidence is strongest for hypertension and cardiovascular disease, suggestive for diabetes and reproductive effects and weak for cerebrovascular disease, long-term neurological effects, and cancer at sites other than lung, bladder, kidney and skin." (3)
4. Are there any benefits from arsenic?
One BBC report on arsenic poisoning confirms "Small doses of arsenic have been shown to send some forms of cancer into remission, and it can also help thin blood." (4)
Mike Adams, the author of your article, calls himself the "Health Ranger" and proclaims himself an "expert" on health. He is an outspoken basher of the FDA with no credentials in science, health, or nutrition. But, he justifies his reputation as a fringe guru with this excerpt from the article: "What's astonishing about all this is that the FDA tells consumers it's safe to eat cancer-causing arsenic but it's dangerous to drink elderberry juice! The FDA recently conducted an armed raid in an elderberry juice manufacturer, accusing it of the "crime" of selling "unapproved drugs." (http://www.naturalnews.com/032631_elder … _raid.html) Which drugs would those be? The elderberry juice, explains the FDA. You see, the elderberry juice magically becomes a "drug" if you tell people how it can help support good health." Mr. Adams sympathizes with the poor juice distributor and neglects to mention the FDA complaint filed in the U.S. District Court of Kansas accusing Wyldewood Cellars of advertising their "elderberry juice concentrate cures, treats, or prevents various disease conditions, including AIDS, diabetes and flu." (5)
With all the fact-based criticism available, it seems unnecessary to use false statements and an Internet charlatan to bash the FDA.
Thanks again, Cags, for an interesting thread.
(1) http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/h … senic.html
(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_he … ning.shtml
(5) http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases … 12293.html
The thread was only to provoke reaction. But, good to know you're easily provoked.
Hey, back at you, Cags.
No, I am not easily provoked. I had no idea you needed to use lies and misstatements just to provoke a reaction. As for your credibility, squander it any way you like.
Have a good night.
Nice try. I'm not easily provoke.
Oh good to know.
You're funny. Attempting to try yet again to claim lies.
You breakdown much, but you fail to realize or even understand that the FDA has for years supports protectionism of corporations and the junk they put on the market. And, that's NOT a lie. Much of the accumulative junk on the market, as a collective, is the doing the damage in my statement and it's not any ONE source.
So, get off your high horse. The FDA has been doing it for years telling the public certain things are bad for it and then years later changing it's mind.
It's NOT my credibility. It's the FDA. But nice try to lay it off on me.
That is what you're best at.
Hi Cags. I hope you are doing well this evening.
There is no need to become belligerent. I was only pointing out to your readers that the OP statement contains false and misleading statements. I realize now that you knew these statements were false when you posted them and that your intention was to provoke others.
You said: “It [the FDA] finally admits yet again it's actions have been killing people.” That is your lie and you own it even if you pretend you did not say it.
Thanks for explaining your perceptions of FDA misfeasance.
I hope you have an enjoyable evening.
Or they genuinely thought it wasn't a risk, which it still might not be. Arsenic occurs naturally in ground water and soil and so in most crops like rice and fruit. It does have a safe consumption level. It is measured by the FDA and is below that level. I personally am not convinced the levels in chicken are of concern and am happy to eat it--it's much safer than the mercury content in fish....
If arsenic is indeed a carcinogen (and I do not have time to plough through the scientific literature on this topic), then, as with other carcinogens, there is no safe threshold level. A carcinogen exerts its effect by acting on DNA. The result of the interaction is a sort of binary code affair: either 0 or 1. Even one molecule of a carcinogen could theoretically make a hit on DNA at a sensitive spot to start off the cancer process.
This is why some smokers die of lung cancer at a relatively early age, while others puff away happily into their nineties.
Commissioner Hamberg has ties to Eugenics, and Mike Taylor is a former lawyer for Monsanto.
If that ain't enough to let you know that the FDA doesn't give a damn, then I don't know what is.
Exactly right. The FDA and the USDA are products of corporate inbreeding. One of the reasons your health supplements (vitamins) are being pushed to FDA control. That should double their price, cut availability and effectively destroy credibility.
Most government agencies are captives of the corporations.
Can you name one that isn't? It's what happens when "corporate person hood" is .....law.
So you've seen "The Corporation"? For those who haven't, a must see if you can find a copy. When corporations were analyzed using a psychological evaluation test designed for humans, the corporate entity received an evaluation mark of 'psychopath'. Mind-boggling.
I've not seen it. I wrote a hub about corporate personhood because someone with his own site wanted to have a "dueling blog" thing with me.
When I looked into what corporate personhood is.....I wished that I'd remained blissfully ignorant.
I work with people from the FDA and USDA and they are mostly civil servants trying to do a good job and help people just like everyone else. I would certainly rather eat meat they are inspecting that meat that wasn't inspected.
It's not the little guy we're worried about. It's the lawmakers withing the structure. It's what they allow to pass for food that is worrisome. The worker bee is just doing what the law has already mandated.
The FDA and USDA largely is the people in the organization. So constantly ragging on them is like jumping on teachers, or firefighters or any other profession.
They mostly do a very good and important job providing food that is safer than ever before in history, and doing it on a very limited and shrinking budget. And that includes the executives. The FDA and USDA do not make their own rules, those come from the Fed.
It is worth keeping that in mind when grabbing one issue and using it to declare they basically are corrupt, useless and evil. i deal with them regularly and find them to be honest, intelligent and sincere.
And on the issue of Arsenic, I think they relayed what information science provided, and changed their position when new data was available. I think they still believe arsenic levels in chicken to be safe, a position I also believe based on the evidence. You could eat chicken at every meal and every snack and be at no risk whatsoever of arsenic poisoning--as could a two year old child.
And BTW I am in no way involved in government of agriculture myself--I work primarily as an animal advocate. So I am generally pushing for change--but only where change will lead to a net benefit to animals and/or people.
The arsenic is used to control bacterial disease--something that certainly will cause animal suffering and contaminate meat. Non-arsenic alternatives are probably a wise move at least for PR--but the old product does not endanger health any more than drinking well water does.
Yes, "common people" aren't in the know of what goes on at the top.
It's a pyramid system - bosses at the top, little people below, who are generally all good and honest people as good government.The corporations only need to buy off the top bosses, like the Mexican Mafia does. And the little people don't know who they are working for. And prosecutors don't understand why their cases are dropped.
So which people exactly do you think are deliberately trying to poison people, any why? I see occasional stupidity and/or laziness at the political level and top civil service, not so much actual evil.
The corporations live by essentially by one law, which is profit. If arsenic increases profit, they will create the rational that it is perfectly safe, like cigarettes, asbestos, nuclear energy and on and on. Then it is nice if they can find government regulators who agree with them, and put them on the
corporate board when they leave the gov. Profit dictates the rational.
That's my understanding as well. It's not that they are 'trying' to poison us, it's a matter of them saying 'how much can we allow even though it's bad, without getting called out and still make optimal profits?'
There are any number of substances we ingest which are deemed safe in minute proportions. Over time, the story will change as our bodies accumulate them and I believe is the missing link to the mystery behind our late 20th c diseases. I would put any of those lawmakers to the test - you ingest this glass of water which contains minute amounts of arsenic, neurotoxins, whatever, every day for the next ten years. Call me when you're done.
Good people in the government, socialism is good.
It is not government that is bad; it is people who use government for their own ends, as opposed to the general welfare, that is what makes government bad.
Let me propose to you a company's business model, and then you tell me whether you think it would be corrupt, or is set up in a way to maximize benefits towards a society:
Company gets about $5 million each year, no matter what. It's job is to make sure that X is safe before it is sold. There is no competition allowed -- only Company gets to decide if X can be sold.
If Company releases a safe X, then Company receives no money and is not in anyway rewarded. However, if Company releases a DANGEROUS X, and X ends up hurting people, it is likely to be sued and the management will likely be fired.
Obviously this is a horrible business model, and one that is dangerous for society in general. The incentives are set up to waste money on excessive testing, and to accept bribes from X makers.
However, even mentioning the idea that "the FDA is really set up in a horrible way to help people" means that you're a God-Hating, Terrorist, Pedophilic, Crazy lunatic.
Oh well. The earth is flat.
Okay, what about femoterol, Avandia, phen-fen? All drugs approved by the gov't whores at the FDA and ALL are proven to kill. We're supposed to listen to these over educated idiots and let them kill us without taking responsibility for their actions? Evan, you can't seriously believe the FDA is not corrupt as it was formed for the benefit of big Pharma so we "little guy won;t have a recourse except to sue. I don;t hear that these corps. being fined or under gov;t oversight when their products kill.
Sometimes I can't tell with Evan, but I think he was being sarcastic. Anyway, you are 100% correct, IMO, about this drug approval routine. There's a list as long as your arm of drugs that were approved quickly only to be recalled. The latest on the list is ACTOS. The FDA now claims there is a "relationship" between ACTOS and bladder cancer. Why didn't they discover this relationship before they so quickly approved it? Money.
There was nothing sarcastic in my post at all.
The FDA is "Company" and they are the SOLE arbiter of what is allowed to become medicine or not. When they pass good things, they get no accolades, but when they pass bad medicine, they get sued.
This leads to over testing, and is just a horrible business model. They HAVE to be corrupt, there's just no way they couldn't be.
If they were really overtesting, why are there so many drug recalls? I think they shortened the test period some time ago and this is the reason for so many mishaps.
Since the 1930s?
How many major "bad drug" recalls have there been in 81 years?
Geo listed three... so... ... that's a 0.037 / year rate...
Perhaps I mispoke or have succumbed to the scare tactics of attorneys. Every month there is a new drug being advertised by some lawyer saying "if you or a loved on have died or have had any of the following..blah blah blah...you could be eligible for compensation." The latest being ACTOS.
Umm... did you read what I wrote?
The FDA approved those drugs, and likely got into huge trouble. But whenever they allow a drug that is awesome, they get no reward.
Go google "FDA Sued" and see what pops up.
This is a business model for corruption and harm-to-society.
I think you need to re-read what I wrote.
Yeah, sorry. Sometimes I just don't understand you. It's nothing personal, I'm just not up to your speed in business acumen.
I guess that last paragraph and comment threw me. Not sure I agree with you. I agree with the poor business model. Do you have a better one?
Yeah, let a company get rewarded for doing good, and let them fail for doing bad.
And let there be competition amongst different drug judges. This way the more accurate testers can get drugs on the market faster, and can be put out of business by better arbiters.
So I guess Americans that eat hamburgers are picking shit with the chickens. Outstanding, raw milk will make you sick, even kill ya. Chicken is bad, beef bad, and pork is running wild distroying farmers crops. Sounds like the animals have it out for we humans.
No, it sounds like corporations control the government, and corporations are concerned about PROFITS, and not people.
I guess sarcasm is really hard to judge, huh? (meaning- Teddletonmr comment)
Yeah - it doesn't translate well at all.
I wrote a satire parody bit about Monsanto (I've several hubs about Monsanto)....and have received virtual death threats from folks who didn't realize how sarcastic I was being.
It's not beyond me to make the same mistake :-/
So, the government needs to nanny us from birth to grave?
"Don't eat fat, it's bad for you"
"Don't smoke, it's bad for you"
How long until the President is just Mr. Mackey from South Park...
No nannies, but also keep you f-----ing deep pockets out of my food. If it weren't for the big push in organics these days (obviously there are a lot of us) I'd have to starve to death or eat their food which will kill me slowly, insidiously.
It's no shock to add the FDA to the list of corrupted institutions from the Bush II era. The agency, like the VA claims processing, needs to be broken down and redone from the start.
The FDA goes back a lot further than the either Bush administration.
Each administration defines the FDA mission to their own administrations needs. One administration will turn a blind eye here, some will turn a blind eye there. If you only knew what is really happening with your food and drugs, you may realize that chicken is the least of our worries.
Seriously, what are you, like 10? @ xononlit
(I thought about deleting this heat of the moment comment...but..)
Check out this 11yr old talking about corporate marketing, Monsanto, and genetic engineering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvVZwJbs … re=related
Here's just one example of the latest FDA's literal non-sense.
"The FDA has linked a relationship between ACTOS and Bladder Cancer."
It seems extremely suspicious to me that the FDA first approved this drug (just one of many) without finding a "relationship" then found one afterward. IMO, they approve drugs way to fast. They're being pushed by either big pharma or social pressure. I doubt it's social pressure. There's no risk to them because they cannot be sued. Big pharma may have a leg to stand on because of the drug's FDA approval. Attorneys are making money. Pharma has big insurance to pay them. The sick individual's insurance company is making money. Everyone benefits except the end user who not only does not benefit but may be taken to the grave.
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
by M. T. Dremer 3 years ago
Is corporate censorship the same as government censorship?In the U.S. we have freedom of speech, so government censorship is a serious thing. But when we work for a corporation, we have to sign legal documents that give the company the power to terminate our contract. Which is why celebrities often...
by glmclendon 6 years ago
Is corporate money good for elections? why / why not
by Andrew Spacey 5 weeks ago
In this 21st century have the privileged got too greedy?If as humans all we need is food&water, shelter, love, work and belief shouldn't we be cutting down on our material luxuries?Is corporate greed to blame for the current recession and financial anxiety?Are tax havens for the rich...
by Stump Parrish 7 years ago
Sry for the legnth but I did check the forum rules and none apply to length. I am long winded and it ain'y likely to change anytime soon. Too long, Don't read. Peace Everyone.I hope that your not suprised that it's The Faux News/ "Republican Canidate Prooming Corporation of America" RCPCA...
by Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4I supported...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|