5 ms·

The FDA isn't "toothless"...

ceejayoz 3y ago
One of the key differences here is the FDA permits food additives and adulterants to be self-affirmed as "Generally Recognized As Safe", which largely means "well, no one says it isn't, yet". https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-246 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-246 > Because GRAS notification is voluntary and companies are not required to identify nanomaterials in their GRAS substances, FDA has no way of knowing the full extent to which engineered nanomaterials have entered the U.S. food supply as part of GRAS substances. In contrast to FDA's approach, all food ingredients that incorporate engineered nanomaterials must be submitted to regulators in Canada and the European Union before they can be marketed.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Right. Effectively, it's innocent until found to be guilty. In the context of public health and environmental wellbeing, that's a way-more-risk-than-is-necessary way to approach their responsibilities. Great for profits. Nots so good for everyone and everything else.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
Toothless? How about clueless then? Or better, favors Big Inc profits over public health. Call it what you want, but the FDA is too often a paper tiger.
- boringuser2 3y ago
  Only someone who has never worked under the FDAs eye of Sauron could think this, strong Dunning-Kruger vibe.
  - beedeebeedee 3y ago
    I'm sure they come hard when enforcing legislation, but the issue seems to be they are not proactive enough in investigating issues before legislation has been made.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Only someone who doesn't follow the news would think this. The FDA's (unofficial) motto is: Innocent until found guilty. They know. We know it. Big Inc knows it. That's a foolish - at best - way to approach public health and ecological health. Tho', of course, it's great for profits.
  - malfist 3y ago
    > strong Dunning-Kruger vibe Remember, personal attacks are not allowed here. One doesn't have to work for the FDA to realize that the prioritize profit over health in a lot of cases. Case in point is sunscreen. How many years did the FDA allow sunscreens that didn't protect against UV-A exposure, knowing that UV-A was the primary cause for sun damage related skin cancer. Even when they did decide to require protection against UV-A, the enforcement was delayed for several years, explicitly to not cause financial harm to sunscreen makers. I remember back in college, enforcement was delayed over a year to permit sellers to move through existing stock of sunscreen. This is far from the only example. FDA very much prioritizes protecting companies bottom lines.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      It's true though. The FDA almost certainly has at least a dozen folks much smarter than the user calling them 'clueless'. And all regulated organizations, in total, certainly have many hundreds much smarter responding to the FDA. It's very likely that at least a few thousand actual bonafide geniuses interact substantially, in some way, in any given year.
      - chiefalchemist 3y ago
        Smart? What does that have to do with doing their job? Are you saying that smart people aren't lazy? Aren't corruptible? Don't suffer from group-think? Geez, the list could go on and on and on. If smart was all that is necessary, we wouldn't need the likes of the FDA. If smart was all that is necessary, the world wouldn't be the clusterfuck that it is. History is clear...relying on smart is a stupid idea. Ignoring history? Even worse.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        These points would also apply to HN users, so the relative gap remains the same.
  - troyvit 3y ago
    > FDA staffers play a pivotal role in drug approvals, presenting evidence to the agency's advisory panels and influencing or making approval decisions. They are free to move to jobs in pharma, and many do;in a 2016 study in The BMJ, researchers examined the job histories of 55 FDA staff who had conducted drug reviews over a 9-year period in the hematologyoncology field. They found that 15 of the 26 employees who left the agency later worked or consulted for the biopharmaceutical industry.[1] I don't have to work at the FDA to see that it's compromised. Somebody already figured it out. https://www.science.org/content/article/fda-s-revolving-door-companies-often-hire-agency-staffers-who-managed-their-successful https://www.science.org/content/article/fda-s-revolving-door...
tootie 3y ago
John Oliver did a whole bit on the FDA recently. They are very stringent and professional, but massively underresourced for the amount of ground they have to cover. And they spend most of their resources on drugs and far less on food. https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg?si=LiW1DD4hGJAT5OOh https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg?si=LiW1DD4hGJAT5OOh

One of the key differences here is the FDA permits food additives and adulterants to be self-affirmed as "Generally Recognized As Safe", which largely means "well, no one says it isn't, yet". https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-246 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-246 > Because GRAS notification is voluntary and companies are not required to identify nanomaterials in their GRAS substances, FDA has no way of knowing the full extent to which engineered nanomaterials have entered the U.S. food supply as part of GRAS substances. In contrast to FDA's approach, all food ingredients that incorporate engineered nanomaterials must be submitted to regulators in Canada and the European Union before they can be marketed.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Right. Effectively, it's innocent until found to be guilty. In the context of public health and environmental wellbeing, that's a way-more-risk-than-is-necessary way to approach their responsibilities. Great for profits. Nots so good for everyone and everything else.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Toothless? How about clueless then? Or better, favors Big Inc profits over public health. Call it what you want, but the FDA is too often a paper tiger.

boringuser2 3y ago
Only someone who has never worked under the FDAs eye of Sauron could think this, strong Dunning-Kruger vibe.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  I'm sure they come hard when enforcing legislation, but the issue seems to be they are not proactive enough in investigating issues before legislation has been made.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Only someone who doesn't follow the news would think this. The FDA's (unofficial) motto is: Innocent until found guilty. They know. We know it. Big Inc knows it. That's a foolish - at best - way to approach public health and ecological health. Tho', of course, it's great for profits.
- malfist 3y ago
  > strong Dunning-Kruger vibe Remember, personal attacks are not allowed here. One doesn't have to work for the FDA to realize that the prioritize profit over health in a lot of cases. Case in point is sunscreen. How many years did the FDA allow sunscreens that didn't protect against UV-A exposure, knowing that UV-A was the primary cause for sun damage related skin cancer. Even when they did decide to require protection against UV-A, the enforcement was delayed for several years, explicitly to not cause financial harm to sunscreen makers. I remember back in college, enforcement was delayed over a year to permit sellers to move through existing stock of sunscreen. This is far from the only example. FDA very much prioritizes protecting companies bottom lines.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    It's true though. The FDA almost certainly has at least a dozen folks much smarter than the user calling them 'clueless'. And all regulated organizations, in total, certainly have many hundreds much smarter responding to the FDA. It's very likely that at least a few thousand actual bonafide geniuses interact substantially, in some way, in any given year.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      Smart? What does that have to do with doing their job? Are you saying that smart people aren't lazy? Aren't corruptible? Don't suffer from group-think? Geez, the list could go on and on and on. If smart was all that is necessary, we wouldn't need the likes of the FDA. If smart was all that is necessary, the world wouldn't be the clusterfuck that it is. History is clear...relying on smart is a stupid idea. Ignoring history? Even worse.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        These points would also apply to HN users, so the relative gap remains the same.
- troyvit 3y ago
  > FDA staffers play a pivotal role in drug approvals, presenting evidence to the agency's advisory panels and influencing or making approval decisions. They are free to move to jobs in pharma, and many do;in a 2016 study in The BMJ, researchers examined the job histories of 55 FDA staff who had conducted drug reviews over a 9-year period in the hematologyoncology field. They found that 15 of the 26 employees who left the agency later worked or consulted for the biopharmaceutical industry.[1] I don't have to work at the FDA to see that it's compromised. Somebody already figured it out. https://www.science.org/content/article/fda-s-revolving-door-companies-often-hire-agency-staffers-who-managed-their-successful https://www.science.org/content/article/fda-s-revolving-door...

tootie 3y ago

John Oliver did a whole bit on the FDA recently. They are very stringent and professional, but massively underresourced for the amount of ground they have to cover. And they spend most of their resources on drugs and far less on food. https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg?si=LiW1DD4hGJAT5OOh https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg?si=LiW1DD4hGJAT5OOh