...the good, the bad and the ugly.
The food pyramid is as much, if not more, a political document then a scientific one.
It is not a over statement to declare that in it's history the FDA has maybe hurt more people then it has helped.
The FDA often endorses drugs it should ban, bans drugs ans supplements it should endorse, and ignores sound science in the name of politics, money and agency and job security.
Many of their recommendations need to be researched as to their actual benefits versus the risks,
Conversely the FDA often bans certain supplements (indeed because they are in bed with big pharma, they have tried outright more then once discontinue the use of ALL supplements without a prescription from a doctor) that are relatively safe and have been used for centuries, in some cases thousands of years.
Below are excerpts from articles about the FDA.
1- The USDA Food Pyramid is a Political Document
APRIL 8, 2010
You’ve been punked by the government . . . and not in a good-natured way. What you’ve been taught about healthy eating, how our society has determined school lunches, health education, and nutritional requirements is a product of lobbying, not science. Check out the USDA’s current food pyramid:
Beyond the crucial inclusion of Triscuits in your grain consumption, notice anything strange?
What if I told you that 100% of Native Americans, 90% of Asian Americans, and 75% of African Americans are naturally lactose intolerant? Funny then that the USDA would declare milk such an essential part of a healthy diet, right?
Or, look at the “Meat & Beans” section — and notice that it doesn’t say “Meat OR Beans.” When even the American Dietetic Association finds that properly planned vegetarianism is a perfectly healthy way to live, it’s odd that the USDA would teach schoolkids and the public that you have to eat meat to be healthy.
A lot of money, right? And, these millions don’t even count campaign contributions from the dairy industry which total nearly $32 million over the last 20 years. The total for the livestock industry is nearly $42 million.
So: 1. Agribusiness industries lobby in Washington and spend lots on campaign contributions; 2. Under these circumstances the USDA produces the food pyramid; and 3. At the end of the day, your kids are taught what to eat based on what the lobbyists want them to learn.
What to do?
Well first, obviously, start learning how to actually eat healthy and transform your health and the health of your family.
Secondly, we need to address these issues on a societal level. What is the best strategy for this? Some argue that the best path is for individuals to vote with their pocketbooks, change their individual lifestyles, and in so doing, change the world. Others think that’s nonsense, and that the only way to effect change is through coordinated organizing and action. Still others think that voting at the polls or running for office is the only way. What’s your argument? Please comment on this.
For more great info and analysis check out Food Politics, the great book and blog by NYU (and IIN!) Professor Marion Nestle.
— Steve
Link to article - https://lizandstevedooley.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/the-usda-food-pyramid-is-a-political-document/
2 - The FDA and food companies have been wrong before: they have assured us of the safety of products that were not safe
The following is an excerpt from Chapter 14, “Seedy Business: What Big Food is hiding with its slick PR campaign on GMOs,” by Gary Ruskin, co-director of the public watchdog group US Right to Know.
Many people believe that if a food is sold in the U.S. market, it must be safe. This impression is false.
On food safety, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and food companies have been wrong before – many times. The FDA and food companies have often allowed food products or additives on the market, later to discover they were, in fact, unsafe.
This is important, because it suggests that since the FDA and food companies have been wrong before, they could be wrong again, this time about genetically engineered foods.
(It is curious that many Republicans – who are inclined to distrust the federal agencies, including the FDA — should so readily accept the idea that a food is safe because the FDA allows it on the market.)
What follows is a list of food additives, artificial flavors and sweeteners that were sold in the United States and later removed from the market because they were unsafe.
One could make a parallel list of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals that were subsequently pulled from the market, such as Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol, Propulsid, Rezulin, Lotronex, Trasylol and many others.[1]
But this is a report about food, so we will keep our focus there.
Agene (nitrogen trichloride) was a widely used bleaching agent for wheat flour between 1924-49.[2] In 1948, according to the New York Times, 90% of all white flour was agenized.[3] Agene was banned in 1949,[4] after it was discovered to have caused “running fits” and “hysteria” in dogs.[5]
Cinnamyl anthranilate was an artificial flavor. It produces an imitation grape or cherry flavor. It was found to cause liver in mice,[6] and was banned in 1985.[7]
Cobalt salts were added to beer as a foam stabilizer. In 1966, cobalt salts were linked to thirty-seven deaths due to cardiomyopathy,[8] and later that year the FDA banned them.[9]
Coumarin is a vanilla flavoring, a product of the tonka bean. According to the New York Times, it was “widely used in ice creams, candy, baked goods, soft drinks and products using chocolate, for many years.”[10] It is toxic to the liver, and was banned by the FDA in 1954.[11]
Cyclamates are a class of artificial sweeteners. They were popular; about 15 million pounds were used in 1967, mostly in soft drinks.[12] The FDA banned them in 1969, following evidence that they caused bladder tumors in rats.[13]...
And the list continues. Here is the link to the full article - https://usrtk.org/the-fda-and-food-...of-the-safety-of-products-that-were-not-safe/
3 - FDA Looking to Ban B6 Supplements, Give Boost to Big Pharma
Elizabeth Renter
Activist Post
Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:14 UTC
© Activist Post
Vitamin B6, naturally present in a variety of foods, is necessary for proper nerve function, protein synthesis, regulating blood sugar, and producing antibodies and hemoglobin. In other words, it's pretty important stuff. But, while many people get their B6 through supplements, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is looking to make things a lot more difficult - by slowly taking all forms of B6 supplements off the market so Big Pharma can make millions off of prescriptions instead.
According to the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), the FDA has already begun their crusade. They removed Pyridoxamine (a natural form of B6) supplements from the market at the request of BioStratum, a pharmaceutical company.
Why? Because BioStratum thinks it might be nice to use Pyrdoxamine in a prescription drug. They haven't developed the drug, we don't know what it is, and who knows when it will come to fruition, but the FDA honored a request from the big corporation to protect the company's interest.
Now, the FDA is poised to pull another B6 product: P5P.
You see, the human body must convert B6 to P5P to make it usable within the body. Fortunately, some supplement companies have created P5P and it is currently available as a natural supplement. But, another pharmaceutical giant has petitioned the FDA to "protect its interests".
Medicure Pharma would like all P5P removed from the supplement market so they can begin to work on a drug containing the crucial form of B6. In their petition, they state:
But, the FDA has not yet honored the ANH's petition yet concerning the B6 supplements. And while the FDA doesn't always care what is in the best interest of the people, we hope that by joining the ANH, we can make our voices heard.
You can help. Contact the FDA and Congress today and let them know that not all consumers are interested in drugs over supplements. You can find a petition here on the Alliance for Natural Health's website.
Link to full article - https://www.sott.net/article/251611-FDA-Looking-to-Ban-B6-Supplements-Give-Boost-to-Big-Pharma
AUG 7, 2013 @ 08:48 AM 22,572 VIEWSThe Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
4 - Is The FDA Being Compromised By Pharma Payments?
I cover news on drugs and R&D in the pharma industry
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
In touting an upcoming special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), Donald W. Light of the School of Public Health, University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ, wrote an article entitled “Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted”. Last week I discussed one aspect of this article, Light’s challenge that 90% of FDA approved drugs of the last 30 years are no more effective than existing drugs. However, the bulk of his essay focuses not on his views about pharma’s competence but rather on his issues with the FDA. While I found a number of his comments troubling, the following stood out.
“The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulations, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths.”
This is a pretty damning comment. Basically, Light is saying that pharma paid congressmen to sponsor legislation that results in the FDA being beholden to pharma for funding for its work. Implicit in this is that, as a result of these large “contributions”, the grateful FDA is rapidly approving medicines that are harmful.
Link to full article
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnla...-compromised-by-pharma-payments/#5705f1972830
5 - U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug review bears a structural similarity to many decisions made by other regulatory agencies: high uncertainty, low reversibility, avoidance of observable error, and high political stakes that induce lobbying by interested parties. This paper explores the policy lessons to be learned from viewing FDA drug review as a politically shaped exercise in information processing. I argue that the incentives facing regulators induce limits on the degree to which drug review can be accelerated, that the same incentives could render privatization initiatives problematic, and that political pressures could play a useful role in identifying priority drugs.
Full article - The Political Economy Of FDA Drug Review: Processing, Politics, And Lessons For Policy
The food pyramid is as much, if not more, a political document then a scientific one.
It is not a over statement to declare that in it's history the FDA has maybe hurt more people then it has helped.
The FDA often endorses drugs it should ban, bans drugs ans supplements it should endorse, and ignores sound science in the name of politics, money and agency and job security.
Many of their recommendations need to be researched as to their actual benefits versus the risks,
Conversely the FDA often bans certain supplements (indeed because they are in bed with big pharma, they have tried outright more then once discontinue the use of ALL supplements without a prescription from a doctor) that are relatively safe and have been used for centuries, in some cases thousands of years.
Below are excerpts from articles about the FDA.
1- The USDA Food Pyramid is a Political Document
APRIL 8, 2010
You’ve been punked by the government . . . and not in a good-natured way. What you’ve been taught about healthy eating, how our society has determined school lunches, health education, and nutritional requirements is a product of lobbying, not science. Check out the USDA’s current food pyramid:
Beyond the crucial inclusion of Triscuits in your grain consumption, notice anything strange?
What if I told you that 100% of Native Americans, 90% of Asian Americans, and 75% of African Americans are naturally lactose intolerant? Funny then that the USDA would declare milk such an essential part of a healthy diet, right?
Or, look at the “Meat & Beans” section — and notice that it doesn’t say “Meat OR Beans.” When even the American Dietetic Association finds that properly planned vegetarianism is a perfectly healthy way to live, it’s odd that the USDA would teach schoolkids and the public that you have to eat meat to be healthy.
A lot of money, right? And, these millions don’t even count campaign contributions from the dairy industry which total nearly $32 million over the last 20 years. The total for the livestock industry is nearly $42 million.
So: 1. Agribusiness industries lobby in Washington and spend lots on campaign contributions; 2. Under these circumstances the USDA produces the food pyramid; and 3. At the end of the day, your kids are taught what to eat based on what the lobbyists want them to learn.
What to do?
Well first, obviously, start learning how to actually eat healthy and transform your health and the health of your family.
Secondly, we need to address these issues on a societal level. What is the best strategy for this? Some argue that the best path is for individuals to vote with their pocketbooks, change their individual lifestyles, and in so doing, change the world. Others think that’s nonsense, and that the only way to effect change is through coordinated organizing and action. Still others think that voting at the polls or running for office is the only way. What’s your argument? Please comment on this.
For more great info and analysis check out Food Politics, the great book and blog by NYU (and IIN!) Professor Marion Nestle.
— Steve
Link to article - https://lizandstevedooley.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/the-usda-food-pyramid-is-a-political-document/
2 - The FDA and food companies have been wrong before: they have assured us of the safety of products that were not safe
The following is an excerpt from Chapter 14, “Seedy Business: What Big Food is hiding with its slick PR campaign on GMOs,” by Gary Ruskin, co-director of the public watchdog group US Right to Know.
Many people believe that if a food is sold in the U.S. market, it must be safe. This impression is false.
On food safety, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and food companies have been wrong before – many times. The FDA and food companies have often allowed food products or additives on the market, later to discover they were, in fact, unsafe.
This is important, because it suggests that since the FDA and food companies have been wrong before, they could be wrong again, this time about genetically engineered foods.
(It is curious that many Republicans – who are inclined to distrust the federal agencies, including the FDA — should so readily accept the idea that a food is safe because the FDA allows it on the market.)
What follows is a list of food additives, artificial flavors and sweeteners that were sold in the United States and later removed from the market because they were unsafe.
One could make a parallel list of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals that were subsequently pulled from the market, such as Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol, Propulsid, Rezulin, Lotronex, Trasylol and many others.[1]
But this is a report about food, so we will keep our focus there.
Agene (nitrogen trichloride) was a widely used bleaching agent for wheat flour between 1924-49.[2] In 1948, according to the New York Times, 90% of all white flour was agenized.[3] Agene was banned in 1949,[4] after it was discovered to have caused “running fits” and “hysteria” in dogs.[5]
Cinnamyl anthranilate was an artificial flavor. It produces an imitation grape or cherry flavor. It was found to cause liver in mice,[6] and was banned in 1985.[7]
Cobalt salts were added to beer as a foam stabilizer. In 1966, cobalt salts were linked to thirty-seven deaths due to cardiomyopathy,[8] and later that year the FDA banned them.[9]
Coumarin is a vanilla flavoring, a product of the tonka bean. According to the New York Times, it was “widely used in ice creams, candy, baked goods, soft drinks and products using chocolate, for many years.”[10] It is toxic to the liver, and was banned by the FDA in 1954.[11]
Cyclamates are a class of artificial sweeteners. They were popular; about 15 million pounds were used in 1967, mostly in soft drinks.[12] The FDA banned them in 1969, following evidence that they caused bladder tumors in rats.[13]...
And the list continues. Here is the link to the full article - https://usrtk.org/the-fda-and-food-...of-the-safety-of-products-that-were-not-safe/
3 - FDA Looking to Ban B6 Supplements, Give Boost to Big Pharma
Elizabeth Renter
Activist Post
Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:14 UTC
According to the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), the FDA has already begun their crusade. They removed Pyridoxamine (a natural form of B6) supplements from the market at the request of BioStratum, a pharmaceutical company.
Why? Because BioStratum thinks it might be nice to use Pyrdoxamine in a prescription drug. They haven't developed the drug, we don't know what it is, and who knows when it will come to fruition, but the FDA honored a request from the big corporation to protect the company's interest.
Now, the FDA is poised to pull another B6 product: P5P.
You see, the human body must convert B6 to P5P to make it usable within the body. Fortunately, some supplement companies have created P5P and it is currently available as a natural supplement. But, another pharmaceutical giant has petitioned the FDA to "protect its interests".
Medicure Pharma would like all P5P removed from the supplement market so they can begin to work on a drug containing the crucial form of B6. In their petition, they state:
Pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs must be protected from companies that may seek to market the ingredients in those drugs as dietary supplements. The marketing of such products has the potential to undermine the incentive for the development of new drugs because many people may choose to purchase the supplements rather than the drugs.
So, that basically sums it up. In order to protect the money-grabbing interests of this company, at whatever risk to the health of the general public, the federal government should step in and take the supplements out. I suppose that line of thought makes sense if you are a top official with Medicure Pharma. But, the FDA has not yet honored the ANH's petition yet concerning the B6 supplements. And while the FDA doesn't always care what is in the best interest of the people, we hope that by joining the ANH, we can make our voices heard.
You can help. Contact the FDA and Congress today and let them know that not all consumers are interested in drugs over supplements. You can find a petition here on the Alliance for Natural Health's website.
Link to full article - https://www.sott.net/article/251611-FDA-Looking-to-Ban-B6-Supplements-Give-Boost-to-Big-Pharma
AUG 7, 2013 @ 08:48 AM 22,572 VIEWSThe Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
4 - Is The FDA Being Compromised By Pharma Payments?
John LaMattina , CONTRIBUTOR
I cover news on drugs and R&D in the pharma industry
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
In touting an upcoming special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), Donald W. Light of the School of Public Health, University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ, wrote an article entitled “Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted”. Last week I discussed one aspect of this article, Light’s challenge that 90% of FDA approved drugs of the last 30 years are no more effective than existing drugs. However, the bulk of his essay focuses not on his views about pharma’s competence but rather on his issues with the FDA. While I found a number of his comments troubling, the following stood out.
“The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulations, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths.”
This is a pretty damning comment. Basically, Light is saying that pharma paid congressmen to sponsor legislation that results in the FDA being beholden to pharma for funding for its work. Implicit in this is that, as a result of these large “contributions”, the grateful FDA is rapidly approving medicines that are harmful.
Link to full article
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnla...-compromised-by-pharma-payments/#5705f1972830
5 - U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug review bears a structural similarity to many decisions made by other regulatory agencies: high uncertainty, low reversibility, avoidance of observable error, and high political stakes that induce lobbying by interested parties. This paper explores the policy lessons to be learned from viewing FDA drug review as a politically shaped exercise in information processing. I argue that the incentives facing regulators induce limits on the degree to which drug review can be accelerated, that the same incentives could render privatization initiatives problematic, and that political pressures could play a useful role in identifying priority drugs.
Full article - The Political Economy Of FDA Drug Review: Processing, Politics, And Lessons For Policy
Last edited:
