Report says FDA struggles to keep food safe

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A new report says the Food and Drug Administration is stretched thin and needs to reorganize to better keep the nation's food safe.

The report released by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council Tuesday says the agency needs to become more efficient and better target its limited dollars to prevent foodborne illness outbreaks. The 500-page report says the FDA lacks the vision necessary to protect consumers.

Robert Wallace, chairman of the committee that authored the report, said the FDA is too often reactive and not focused enough on prevention. The report recommends the agency focus on preventing outbreaks in the riskiest foods rather than tackling problems on a case-by-case basis.

"As recent illnesses traced to produce underscore, foodborne diseases cause significant suffering, so it's imperative that our food safety system functions effectively at all levels," said Wallace, who is a professor at the University of Iowa's College of Public Health.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSUydumggW2juwPUoFE3jHoEN8SQD9G77HCG0

[Ian David]

1. Unfortunately, most of The FDA is sick with food poisoning right now. n/t

[Militant_Populist]

2. No GMO

They need to get the GMOs of the food too.

[burnsei sensei]

3. That is what a corporatist bias in

policy-making and funding will get you.
The lobbyists pay, the producers get to give us The Jungle all over again.
Even Teddy Roosevelt would be angry. After all, it's his work that's being undermined and ultimately undone.

[Robbien]

4. Their prime objective is to not stand in the way of innovation

Until that mindset changes, nothing will change.

[Militant_Populist]

5. Innovation Isn't Universally Good

When you combine Monsanto and innovation, you get a lot of dead people.

[TZ]

8. GMO's are safe

Christ. I guess the WHO is a corporation too? The same technology goes into vaccines. But I bet you think vaccines are "toxic" don't you. Ugh. Stop with SCIENCE IS TEH EVIL luddism please.
Signed, angry pissed off scientist at the level of science ignorance here.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[4saken]

17. Actually the evidence...

Shows that GMOs aren't necessarily unhealthy. What studies can you point to that make you conclude that modifying an organism's DNA automatically makes the outcome unhealthy to eat?

It's sad how so many will so easily attach to an idea just because it sounds intuitive and is easy for them to believe. Whether something is easy for you to believe or not has nothing to do with its actual truth value. Science doesn't care if you are easily convinced, even without evidence that GMOs are unhealthy.

[Militant_Populist]

18. People Don't Like to Be Lab Rats

No actually people don't like to be Guinea Pigs, I think. We shouldn't be mucking around with DNA, when we understand so little about what we're doing.

[4saken]

20. Well that doesn't support your position.

Merely appealing to incredulity is no way to argue for a position. Apparently you are convinced that modifying an organism's DNA necessarily creates an unhealthy outcome, but instead of evidence that is convincing you of this it seems to be enough just that you and many others don't know enough about it.

Making an assumption(that GMO's are necessarily unhealthy) and then backing it up with an appeal to incredulity just doesn't get you anywhere. We need evidence to support the position. Over the years humans have selectively bred all kinds of organisms, such as the Banana. If the moment they found any change, they therefore assumed it was unhealthy, we wouldn't have Bananas in the form we do today. Not an analogy to GMOs, but it points out the problem of automatically appealing to incredulity.

[Militant_Populist]

23. It's Agri-Business That Makes the Assumption

I remember the old days of the FDA, when they actually researched studied things, and determined them to be safe before releasing them to the general public. I can't believe you are actually arguing that we shouldn't police the radical alteration of what children (or anyone) is eating, and we shouldn't err on the side of caution (like the EU which has allowed few if any GMOs into their food supply).

[kestrel91316]

30. Bananas nave never ruined a farmer's crops who never even planted them.

Google Percy Schmeiser.

[kestrel91316]

29. Hell, people don't like the earth's ECOSYSTEMS to be laboratories

for testing of dangerous GMO's. You can't put the genie back in the bottle once the genetic material gets out and into native flora and fauna and heirloom crops.

[Militant_Populist]

19. Sterility

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

[4saken]

21. You will notice...

"Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how."

"In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're called "Roundup Ready." Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering."

This shows that the study could be giving the results of higher levels of pesticides, and not the genetic engineering. The beans had different levels of pesticides. And they used multiple generations when they are only testing the effects on a single generation. It's very inconclusive.

[Militant_Populist]

24. A GM Crop Causes the Use of Pesticides

As I understand what a Roundup Ready crop is, you use more pesticides -- thus the name. A crop that is not Roundup ready a farmer uses less pesticide on, because too much Roundup will kill your crop. So although the pesticides could be the culprit, it's the GMO crop that is ultimately the problem.

[Iowa]

16. Have you read this?

"I guess the WHO is a corporation too?"

No, the WHO isn't a corp, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can be trusted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060403034.html

[BuddhaGirl]

22. you won't win anyone to your side with your rudeness

so why is it necessary? :shrug:

[Catherina]

25. Then you eat it and stop foisting it on those of us who don't want it

I'm watching how brilliantly all you *smart* scientists peformed in the Gulf every day.

What a joke. There few real *scientists* anymore, just a bunch of corporate yes men willing to do whatever they're asked to in exchange for a few stock options.

What arrogance.

[kestrel91316]

31. There are plenty of good, honest scientists out there. It's just that a

significant minority manage to make such asses of themselves by pandering to corporations that people with little knowledge of how science works assume they are all crooked.

[kestrel91316]

28. GMO's may or may not be safe for long-term human consumption, but

that is UTTERLY BESIDE THE POINT. They are NOT safe for the environment, being likely to cause BIOLOGICAL POLLUTION like in the cases of massive contamination of non-GMO corn and rapeseed with GMO pollen and the resulting financial damage to farmers who don't want the damned stuff.

And as a consumer, I demand the right to know when GMO's are in my food so I can make my own decision whether or not to give my consumer dollars to companies that don't give a damn about BIOLOGICAL POLLUTION.

And yes, I have a doctorate in hard science, not liberal arts.

[TZ]

9. Here's a WHO link

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

[Militant_Populist]

15. Most Wouldn't Agree with You

In 2007 89% of Americans polled in favor of labeling.
http://www.slogefree.org/news07/89-of-americans-want-gm-labeling

[nyc 4 Biden]

6. i'm shocked, shocked i tell ya!

what's next...unsafe vehicles...toys...dog food...tooth paste...pharmaceuticals...working conditions...environmental pollution.

oh that's right, all of the above.

thanks deregulation

[peace13]

7. They struggle with keeping the food safe and from the recent recalls in drugs..

they can't keep that safe either. Tell me what they get paid for and how we can replace them?

[TZ]

10. You do realize for every recall

There is about 100 drugs that are approved that are safe. The ARE doing their jobs. Maybe if people actually learned about science and how the FDA works and didn't get their info from the MSM which is stupid about science people would realize that.
I have interaction with the FDA regulations all the time. THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANELS ARE FINE.
The problems is they don't have enough staffing to do the inspections. They need to be funded better.
Ugh. The FDA does its job all the time without people noticing. Plenty of stuff gets rejected--including a drug my company has been working on just last week...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. The FDA is painfully underfunded and as a result understaffed

While some don't understand that fact, I think many do.

[peace13]

26. Well put and thank you for this.

You were much nicer than I was going to be! Peace, Kim

[kestrel91316]

33. Also, the people W appointed to the FDA and UDSA have monkeywrenched

from the top down to sabotage their efforts. It's the Republican way. They get into office for the sole purpose of harming government programs and warping its policies.

[judesedit]

12. Thye haven't done crap to keep the food safe in years. It's all about the money. Now their jobs

are on the line because people who care about other people are running the show and the FDA is scrambling to make it look like they're doing something. Every food manufacturing company, for lack of a better word, has a chemical lab in it???? Doesn't this seem strange to you? No wonder autism strikes every one in a hundred, even more in boys. Obesity epidemic abounds and astounds in America. Why are the food safety inspectors and regulators in the same organization as the drug safety inspectors and regulators??? Sound like BP? Answer me that. No good reason whatsoever. All about where they can get the most lobby money the quickest for the cheapest investment with non-existent oversight and little movement so the lazy bastards can sit on their asses and get paid for it, while all the while allowing chemicals to be put in our food for all sorts of purposes. Have an imagination? Use it. That's what they have been doing.

[fascisthunter]

14. for years politicians and corporate lobbyists have been chipping away

now they can claim it's ineffectiveness... just as the GOP claims the gov can do no good, so then they get elected to destroy it from within.

[kestrel91316]

27. Bush put his corporate cronies in charge and they gutted inspection

and tied inspectors' hands, would be my guess. Same with USDA.

[Blue_Tires]

32. and the EPA and countless other organizations