When I see “the FDA has stated…” I automatically think it is probably a corrupt conclusion bought by some powerplayer to maximize their own profit instead of having to do with whether the statement is true or not. I’ve always viewed FDA as basically a council of a bunch of power players on boards of Big Capitalism companies like Pepsi that make decisions based on control and market share rather than health.
but I see posts now about how trump attacking FDA equals bad. So is my view of FDA wrong? Are they noncorrupt? Are they a necessary evil? Should they be thrown in a volcano and remade?
You must log in or # to comment.
Is the FDA good or bad?
This is a false dichotomy.
Are they a necessary evil?
Framing things in moralistic terms just further obfuscates things.
The FDA is an enormous organization. It contains contradictions. It contains multitudes. Yes it is in a variety of ways compromised by the capitalist class, but that doesn’t mean the entire enterprise is without value. Black and white thinking isn’t going to cut it here.
Should they be thrown in a volcano and remade?
If you remade the FDA from scratch under capitalism, the result would be roughly the same, because the structures of political power would still be the same.
It’s innately good, but currently it’s swayed by corporations to allow things that are questionable. Corporations want it gone so consumers have no protections and they have the ability to use any cost cutting processes, harmful or not. Think hydroxychlroquine and Ivermectin during covid. Things like sugar pills could be sold as a cure for hypertension and people will die.
Your ability to question anything Trump says is a good thing. Usually, just go by the opposite of what he says.
FDA is intrinsically good but currently does its job below expectations. Doesn’t mean that it’s bad, just means it’s not doing enough. And without FDA, things can and will get significantly worse. Things can always get worse.
Remember that the stories you hear are always going to be the ones that are most controversial, otherwise they would not be news. The day in day out work of the FDA is enormous and most of it, I believe, necessary for the level of trust in what you find on the shelf, what you’re doctor recommends, what your pharmacist hands you, that we enjoy.
I don’t want to have to know my farmer, my chemical compounder, my importer, my distributor, my restaurant chef, etc, etc, for every stupid thing just to avoid eating lead or feeding hepatitis to my kids.
The loudest complaints-- selling raw milk is technically illegal? they allow red food coloring as long as you list it in the ingredients? they may or may not allow you to call oat liquid a “milk”?-- sound pretty small to me, and also even these issues are reviewed and discussed more or less transparently in response to people’s concerns.
That statement is there because the company selling that milk is advertising that it is rBST free. It is illegal to make health claims for a product without proof and it can lead to large fines and forced product withdrawal. The disclaimer protects the company from any false advertising claims.
I was told - but I never fact checked it - that the FDA actually has less than 10 employees. Everyone else is an outside contractor. And if it is true, I do think it needs better organization.
If an agency that has to protect all consumers is organized this way, that’s really worrisome.the FDA actually has less than 10 employees. Everyone else is an outside contractor.
You can search for FDA employees here (the US Government has a lot of transparency around employees). Also, it wouldn’t surprise me to find a lot of contractors in scientific and technical roles in the FDA, the FedGov uses a lot of contractors. I actually spent time, at a site, first as a contractor and then as a direct employee. The only thing that materially changed was whether or not my badge said “contractor” on it. I literally sat in the same seat and did the same job. Pay was pretty close, but the benefits were way better. The line between contractor and govie was pretty blury and more of a running joke than a real wall. Maybe that was just the departments I worked for, but I suspect my experience was more typical.
Fascinating. Thanks for the information! :) Now I know way more than ever wanted :D
had never looked up rbst but doing so right now and right from the start here’s this.
i assume tho that the profit from rbst milk caused the FDA to overlook something like that. Anyway, this is my point. When the FDA states something, i just assume they are doing it to sway the public for the sake of allmighty capitalism; and that them specifically going out of their way to say something actually implies the opposite is true.
Good. Next question.
