5 ms·

Sure, but you do realize that "The Jungle" was a deliberate load of muckraking bull? The whole book was about poor working conditions in American factories and

by astine 18y ago

Sure, but you do realize that "The Jungle" was a deliberate load of muckraking bull? The whole book was about poor working conditions in American factories and to drive the point home, Sinclair described a guy falling into the lard vats and getting eaten. There was no truth to the health claims but the concept of eating people freaked out European importers so much that the US was forced to create FDA (Or its predecessor, I don't remember precisely.) The first reports found no evidence of Sinclair's claims. The ironic thing is that Sinclair was hoping to spark a socialist revolution and improve the lives of the slaughterhouse workers. What happened was that the inspection agencies added to cost to the production process and actually lowered the standard of living for the workers.

apu 18y ago
[Citation Needed]
- astine 18y ago
  http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229 http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229 (yes, this is a bit weak, but I have a job :P)
- mhb 18y ago
  To refute a work of fiction?
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    A work of fiction that is nonetheless far more credible than this sentence: There was no truth to the health claims... From the Wikipedia entry on The Jungle: After much persuasion from Sinclair as to the seriousness of the situation, Roosevelt agreed to send two men to investigate Sinclair's claims. The men the president chose, Charles P. Neill and James B. Reynolds, had both done investigative work for Roosevelt before, and were thought trustworthy... Even though the meat packers had forewarning and time to clean up, the conditions Neill and Reynolds observed were described as "revolting;" the only claim left unsubstantiated by the report was the sensational claim that workers who had fallen into the giant lard vats were left and sold as lard. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an unimpeachable source. But it's better than one guy's unsourced opinion. I note for the record that, confronted with a historical example from last year, a contemporary work of nonfiction (Fast Food Nation), and a work of muckraking fiction from 1906, we've now become curiously focused on debunking a single famous legend from the 1906 work. Because, of course, if Sinclair stretched a fact here and there out of revolutionary fervor, adulterated cat food must be perfectly good for cats.
    - astine 18y ago
      I don't know anything about "Fast Food Nation." I do know a little about Upton Sinclair. I can only argue with what I know. Edit: You are right, it does seem that Wikipedia with some of my claims, but backs up the my points about the real focus and Sinclair's novel and it's real impact. Either way, I prefer transparency to regulation.
etal 18y ago
There was no single event that led to the creation of the FDA as we know it, but there was an interesting string of medical disasters during the first half of the 20th century that caused the scope of the laws and agency to creep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#Early_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#Early_history An especially fascinating one was Elixir Sulfanilamide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide For medicine, the incentives are all wrong for laissez-faire to prevent disaster. If you create a compound that you think will be useful in some way, it only takes a few tests to convince yourself and others that it's worth using. If it works safely in the general population, you're a hero and a millionaire; if you waste time on additional testing, your competition will beat you; and if your testing turns up some ambiguous data, you're stuck with the dilemma of whether to go forward with a product that has risks that the benefits may or may not outweigh. I've worked on medical devices; this last situation comes up constantly. Without detailed specifications that put the burden on the producers to prove safety and efficacy, what the producer thinks is due diligence is generally woefully inadequate. (No comment on the state of agriculture back then, but these days the line between food and drug is getting blurry.)

by astine 18y ago

apu 18y ago

[Citation Needed]

astine 18y ago
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229 http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229 (yes, this is a bit weak, but I have a job :P)
mhb 18y ago
To refute a work of fiction?
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  A work of fiction that is nonetheless far more credible than this sentence: There was no truth to the health claims... From the Wikipedia entry on The Jungle: After much persuasion from Sinclair as to the seriousness of the situation, Roosevelt agreed to send two men to investigate Sinclair's claims. The men the president chose, Charles P. Neill and James B. Reynolds, had both done investigative work for Roosevelt before, and were thought trustworthy... Even though the meat packers had forewarning and time to clean up, the conditions Neill and Reynolds observed were described as "revolting;" the only claim left unsubstantiated by the report was the sensational claim that workers who had fallen into the giant lard vats were left and sold as lard. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an unimpeachable source. But it's better than one guy's unsourced opinion. I note for the record that, confronted with a historical example from last year, a contemporary work of nonfiction (Fast Food Nation), and a work of muckraking fiction from 1906, we've now become curiously focused on debunking a single famous legend from the 1906 work. Because, of course, if Sinclair stretched a fact here and there out of revolutionary fervor, adulterated cat food must be perfectly good for cats.
  - astine 18y ago
    I don't know anything about "Fast Food Nation." I do know a little about Upton Sinclair. I can only argue with what I know. Edit: You are right, it does seem that Wikipedia with some of my claims, but backs up the my points about the real focus and Sinclair's novel and it's real impact. Either way, I prefer transparency to regulation.

etal 18y ago

There was no single event that led to the creation of the FDA as we know it, but there was an interesting string of medical disasters during the first half of the 20th century that caused the scope of the laws and agency to creep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#Early_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#Early_history An especially fascinating one was Elixir Sulfanilamide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide For medicine, the incentives are all wrong for laissez-faire to prevent disaster. If you create a compound that you think will be useful in some way, it only takes a few tests to convince yourself and others that it's worth using. If it works safely in the general population, you're a hero and a millionaire; if you waste time on additional testing, your competition will beat you; and if your testing turns up some ambiguous data, you're stuck with the dilemma of whether to go forward with a product that has risks that the benefits may or may not outweigh. I've worked on medical devices; this last situation comes up constantly. Without detailed specifications that put the burden on the producers to prove safety and efficacy, what the producer thinks is due diligence is generally woefully inadequate. (No comment on the state of agriculture back then, but these days the line between food and drug is getting blurry.)