FDA Kills

#26
#26
TennTradition said:
Valid point. It doesn't provide protection from name-changers and those who are dangerous, but does offer name recognition for those who we think we can trust. The problem, though, is those companies are the ones that will be slow themselves to protect their names. The deluge of products to cure your ailments will come from Johnny-come-latelies that have little to lose.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I understand the argument; however, I believe that in this age where information is so easily accessible to all, that our government should be embracing a "caveat emptor" stance towards consumerism.
 
#27
#27
There is little doubt that such a system would encourage greater personal advocacy, for those that are able to do so.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#29
#29
I don't understand how anybody could be opposed to giving consumers more heath care choices unless their paycheck depended on it.
 
#30
#30
nbakerld said:
I don't understand how anybody could be opposed to giving consumers more heath care choices unless their paycheck depended on it.
Click to expand...

I am all for more choices, I just dont want some of those choices to be fabricated on lies and false data. Thats why we have the FDA, to prevent lies and to call BS on bad drugs
 
#31
#31
therealUT said:
I understand the argument; however, I believe that in this age where information is so easily accessible to all, that our government should be embracing a "caveat emptor" stance towards consumerism.
Click to expand...

so what if that info we are given is a bunch of bull? How are we supposed to know which info is BS and which is for real?


"Buyer be beware" stance is BS when people are banking their lives on a drug. Hey that weight loss pill you just bought, was actually rat poison and you are going to die quickly. Oops, Sorry, "Buyer be Beware", right? (this message was sent from a blackberry on some island in the Carribean while counting my zeros in my swiss bank account)
 
#32
#32
nbakerld said:
I don't understand how anybody could be opposed to giving consumers more heath care choices unless their paycheck depended on it.
Click to expand...

Because some desperate people would end up killing themselves well before whatever is ailing them does. I'm not sure consumers are in a position to make informed, rational choices when they're really looking for a magic bullet or miracle.
 
#33
#33
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Thats why we have the FDA, to prevent lies and to call BS on bad drugs
Click to expand...

The problem is that the FDA in no way focuses on costs. Currently, they are trying to level a zero-tolerance policy at flour mills (any positive tests for any food-borne pathogens results in an immediate shut down of mills plus substantial fines). This will substantially raise the cost of bread (estimates show this will at least double flour costs), while consumers are already warned not to eat unbaked flour. The kill step for most food-borne pathogens comes from super-heating them, aka cooking the food.

The FDA is not concerned with costs for the consumers though; so, if this is implemented, poor people will have a much tougher time feeding themselves. Fortunately, they won't have to worry about getting sick when they do, though.
 
#35
#35
IPorange said:
Because some desperate people would end up killing themselves well before whatever is ailing them does. I'm not sure consumers are in a position to make informed, rational choices when they're really looking for a magic bullet or miracle.
Click to expand...

So you advocate protecting people from themselves, even if it means killing them? :rock:
 
#37
#37
VolsNSkinsFan said:
"Buyer be beware" stance is BS when people are banking their lives on a drug. Hey that weight loss pill you just bought, was actually rat poison and you are going to die quickly. Oops, Sorry, "Buyer be Beware", right? (this message was sent from a blackberry on some island in the Carribean while counting my zeros in my swiss bank account)
Click to expand...

Not sure that this is the most effective example for your argument.

There are plenty of privately funded consumer advocacy groups; many of which publish reports and articles at no cost to the public.
 
#38
#38
IPorange said:
How and when would one consume raw flour? licking the cake mixer?
Click to expand...

Cake mix, cookie dough, dough, etc. The funny part is, that eating raw eggs poses a much greater risk for food-borne pathogens than does flour and basically in any situation in which one would consume raw flour they would consume raw eggs.
 
#39
#39
therealUT said:
The problem is that the FDA in no way focuses on costs. Currently, they are trying to level a zero-tolerance policy at flour mills (any positive tests for any food-borne pathogens results in an immediate shut down of mills plus substantial fines). This will substantially raise the cost of bread (estimates show this will at least double flour costs), while consumers are already warned not to eat unbaked flour. The kill step for most food-borne pathogens comes from super-heating them, aka cooking the food.

The FDA is not concerned with costs for the consumers though; so, if this is implemented, poor people will have a much tougher time feeding themselves. Fortunately, they won't have to worry about getting sick when they do, though.
Click to expand...

The US govrnt printing a trillion $$s and forcing us to burn food for fuel has nothing to do with the rising costs of food. Yep, its all on the FDA
 
#40
#40
therealUT said:
Cake mix, cookie dough, dough, etc. The funny part is, that eating raw eggs poses a much greater risk for food-borne pathogens than does flour and basically in any situation in which one would consume raw flour they would consume raw eggs.
Click to expand...

wow, that's going to put a crimp on the chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream market
 
#41
#41
VolsNSkinsFan said:
The US govrnt printing a trillion $$s and forcing us to burn food for fuel has nothing to do with the rising costs of food. Yep, its all on the FDA
Click to expand...

I think I am on record here as stating the ethanol subsidies have caused corn prices to increase from between $1 and $1.50 per bushel to over $7 per bushel; increasing the costs to produce flour based products definitely compounds the issue.
 
#43
#43
therealUT said:
I think I am on record here as stating the ethanol subsidies have caused corn prices to increase from between $1 and $1.50 per bushel to over $7 per bushel; increasing the costs to produce flour based products definitely compounds the issue.
Click to expand...

Monsanto.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
TennTradition said:
I understand and empathize with the sentiment, but putting this to practice is extremely difficult and dangerous. Can you imagine the number of companies that would straight up be taking advantage of others and potentially killing them? I wish the regulatory process were more efficient, but it has a place IMO.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
This.

therealUT said:
I understand the argument; however, I believe that in this age where information is so easily accessible to all, that our government should be embracing a "caveat emptor" stance towards consumerism.
Click to expand...
And how does that information become available? People try it and get ill or die? Or what about any sort of side effects that are unknown to the average person?

A hundred years ago, drug companies sold baby soothers that contained fairly significant doses of opiates. Nobody had any idea.

Personal accountability is a great concept, but it only works when all the facts are available to everybody and completely accurate, and I doubt that would ever be the case without a public or gov't-sponsored non-profit regulatory body to take a look at everything.

I work largely in the area of dietary supplements, an industry that is about as unregulated as it gets in this country thanks to one Orrin Hatch. Go watch the movie Bigger, Faster, Stronger. The guy making the film picked up some gel caps and flour, and hired a bunch of Mexicans to help him make a few hundred pills. He slapped a label on it claiming it had a bunch of ingredients that weren't in it and would have numerous effects it obviously wouldn't do. Guess what? Those bottles he made could be legally sold without any alteration or research at any supplement store in the nation.

The need for regulation is readily apparent, research on the effects of what we put into our bodies needs to be studied in as unbiased a manner as possible, and those "snake oil salesmen" need to be threatened under severe punishment of law for preying on others. Deregulation gives them the means, they will find a way every time, and it then becomes a matter of when, not if, somebody's life is severely affected or they are killed.

therealUT said:
The problem is that the FDA in no way focuses on costs. Currently, they are trying to level a zero-tolerance policy at flour mills (any positive tests for any food-borne pathogens results in an immediate shut down of mills plus substantial fines). This will substantially raise the cost of bread (estimates show this will at least double flour costs), while consumers are already warned not to eat unbaked flour. The kill step for most food-borne pathogens comes from super-heating them, aka cooking the food.

The FDA is not concerned with costs for the consumers though; so, if this is implemented, poor people will have a much tougher time feeding themselves. Fortunately, they won't have to worry about getting sick when they do, though.
Click to expand...
It then becomes a matter of what you prioritize... Is delivering the basic necessities to all worth it when you can't provide a reasonable guarantee of the safety of those goods?

Prices and public safety have to meet at some reasonable point.

IPorange said:
How and when would one consume raw flour? licking the cake mixer?
Click to expand...
Didn't your momma tell you not to eat the batter?
 
#46
#46
therealUT said:
Not sure that this is the most effective example for your argument.

There are plenty of privately funded consumer advocacy groups; many of which publish reports and articles at no cost to the public.
Click to expand...
This is fine, and I appreciate all the Nader-type groups out there that do this stuff, but this isn't PC's, home theater systems or recreational equipment.

If somebody is planning on mass producing some dietary supplement or drug that people will be planning on needing for their livelihood, there needs to be some sort of mandatory regulation of inspection that the good will do what they say it will do, or at the least, do their best to determine whether not said good posts a serious health risk.

I agree that the FDA is a bloated, slow organization, but in principle this sort of practice needs to be out there. Again, this isn't non-essential consumer goods we're talking about, it's people's health.

therealUT said:
Cake mix, cookie dough, dough, etc. The funny part is, that eating raw eggs poses a much greater risk for food-borne pathogens than does flour and basically in any situation in which one would consume raw flour they would consume raw eggs.
Click to expand...
I think it's readily apparent for most people not to eat raw eggs... Unless all they do is watch Rocky.

therealUT said:
I think I am on record here as stating the ethanol subsidies have caused corn prices to increase from between $1 and $1.50 per bushel to over $7 per bushel; increasing the costs to produce flour based products definitely compounds the issue.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Ethanol fuel has been an absolutely terrible development. It's decreasing my fuel economy and fouling up my damn plugs way more often.
 
#47
#47
IPorange said:
Not what I said. You should go into the straw man manufacturing sector. You crank them out at an amazing rate.
Click to expand...

So please clarify your position because this is very confusing to me.

IPorange said:
Because some desperate people would end up killing themselves well before whatever is ailing them does. I'm not sure consumers are in a position to make informed, rational choices when they're really looking for a magic bullet or miracle.
Click to expand...
 
#48
#48
milohimself said:
This is fine, and I appreciate all the Nader-type groups out there that do this stuff, but this isn't PC's, home theater systems or recreational equipment.

I agree that the FDA is a bloated, slow organization, but in principle this sort of practice needs to be out there. Again, this isn't non-essential consumer goods we're talking about, it's people's health.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't get. Do we trust government? No. Do we trust monopolies? No. Why do we trust monopolistic government with the most important products (food, health care, education, etc.)? I don't know why it gives us warm fuzzies to know these bassackward, corrupt idiots approve of the product we are consuming.
 
Last edited:
#49
#49
nbakerld said:
So you advocate protecting people from themselves, even if it means killing them? :rock:
Click to expand...

I advocate protecting people from killing themselves, period.

You act like the FDA is holding back drugs for fun, and are cherry-picking examples of drugs that get approved. What about the countless ones that don't get approved?

No system is perfect. Opening up the flood gates is going to kill a lot more people than making sure products do what they claim and the side effects are reasonable.

Not giving drugs has never killed anyone. The underlying cause of their condition has. You sound like utgibbs with healthcare, acting like all possible medications are owed to be available to you no matter the potential ramifications. If the FDA with-holding a substance to test it is the same as killing someone, you're making a big statement about murder on this planet.
 
#50
#50
nbakerld said:
This is what I don't get. Do we trust government? No. Do we trust monopolies? No. Why do we trust monopolistic government with the most important products (food, health care, education, etc.)? I don't know why it gives us warm fuzzies to know these bassackward, corrupt idiots approve of the product we are consuming.
Click to expand...
Really, you've got two choices here: Either anybody can put anything they want on a shelf at any given time, and chances are that somebody is going to get hurt or killed using some product before a consumer advocacy group can get to it. Either it's legal to do that or it's not.

I'm fine with the idea of limiting the FDA, and finding independent labs or groups to test stuff.

But the bottom line is there needs to be some sort of mandatory testing before things can get put on shelves like it does.

The difference between entrusting it to the private sector and the government is, people should (at least theoretically) be able to overturn government when something isn't right. That's the way it should work anyways, except that most Americans are too afraid of their government to do anything.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top