US_Ch5_webquest-3

=**Have federal regulators protected the public's health by identifying harmful products?**=

As you've learned, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) was set up to eliminate food and medicine producers from harmful effects. Upton Sinclair's //The Jungle// led to major changes in the meatpacking industry. Most citizens recognize the need for safe food and medicine. The question though is whether or not the government is best equipped to handle the task and also if they have done a good job. Advocates of less government involvement argue that food and medicine makers have an interest in the positive effects of their items in order to keep making sales. If a food or medicine is negative, it won't sell. In addition, companies do not want to face the major legal issues that would be present if they did make harmful food or medicines. However, many Progressive sources write about companies putting narcotics in food and medicines.

Consumer advocates claim that if not for the FDA, there would still be unsafe, harmful products on the shelf. They also claim that testing by the FDA ensures that those products that do come into the market place are safe. However, we have all heard stories of products having to be recalled due to illnesses or problems. For example, in 2007 Chinese produced dog food made it onto the shelves yet had to be recalled due to the deaths of hundreds of cats and dogs. Furthermore, the FDA has blocked "unapproved" medicines from patient access including terminally ill patients even though some medicines are used (with positive results) in other countries. Mr. Hill knows first hand that there is a procedure to fix his eye that has been done successfully in Canada for years but hasn't been approved by the FDA in the U.S. and therefore can't be done....unless Mr. Hill wants to pay the big bucks to the Canadians. In terms of the terminally ill patients using medicines not approved by the FDA, a D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that such patients had the right to use such medicines (but most likely wouldn't be covered under health insurance).

The "Father of the Pure Food and Drug Act," Dr. Harvey Wiley, a leading Progressive, had established himself as a god-like source of nutritional information for the public. He worked in the Agriculture Department and in 1902 was given $5,000 by Congress to study the effect of various food preservatives on 12 human subjects, who were "volunteers" - those who worked in his office. These "poison squad" members were fed meals laced with borax, sulfuric acid, sodium, benzoate, and formaldehyde. This method of testing was even recently touted on the FDA's website - the same agency that refused to allow terminally ill patients to experiment with non-approved medications is the agency that had subjected people to poison tests. Even though Wiley also ate the meals, the public was not reassured by the study. Wiley stopped the experiments when the subjects became ill with vomiting and stomach problems that they could no longer work through. The FDA viewed it as a success and helped Wiley determine that chemical preservatives had no place in food. There was no follow up done on the Poison Squad. During the Progressive Era, corporate America only wished they had the FDA type of treatment of little regulation. Most Americans recognize that such chemicals shouldn't be put in food. Opponents of the Pure Food and Drug Act say that requiring food and medicine producers to list their ingredients and effects are good but that increasing the size and role of government isn't going to solve anything, it's just going to make government bigger and more powerful over the individual.

The first case for the FDA was Coca-Cola. Wiley's campaign against Coca-Cola marked the last phase in a long battle over the "secret ingredient," which officials claimed was cocaine. Pharmaceutical tests showed that the amount of cocaine was 1/30 of a grain (one Coca-Cola historian stated that Dr. Asa Candler's process diluted the cocaine so much that it wouldn't survive). When Wiley got the case into the courts, there was no viable evidence that there was any cocaine (as mentioned it was diluted so much there was no trace of it). Therefore, Wiley changed his tactics to charge the process the company used to dilute the cocaine out. This seemed ridiculous, so Wiley again changed tactics to that of going after the company for a "misbranded" product" since it didn't have traces of cocaine. As a result, the case collapsed when Wiley couldn't produce a "Coca-Cola fiend" as he tried to find witnesses to horrify the jury. Wiley's objectivity had been in question as he made statements that favored some companies' products over others.

Modern Progressives like Michael Jacobsen of the anti-capitalist Center for Science in the Public Interest filed suits against McDonald's for "making" teens obese and tried to ban popcorn from movie theaters for the same reason, and he also tried to target ice cream. Even in 2011, there was talk of taxing sugary foods and banning Happy Meals. On the one hand, the argument can be made that sugary and fatty foods are unhealthy and can cost medical problems which becomes a public problem. On the other hand, many say personal choice and responsibility shouldn't be intruded on by the government. Various consumer groups have allied themselves with the FDA to make litigation in courts a permanent tactic of the "food police." A recent example was the Alar scare in the 1980s. Alar was sprayed on apples to regulate their growth and make harvesting easier. There was public concern about Alar, a pesticide that contained a "possible" carcinogen for humans called UDMH, which was heightened by a report on 60 Minutes in February of 1989. The science was based on one nutritionist's test. Studies showed a correlation between UDMH and lab-animal tumors, but the lab animals were given levels of UDMH equal to a boxcar load of apples a day (no one is going to eat a boxcar full of apples in a year much less each day). One study found the average daily dose of UDMH was 1/10 of that found in tap water and a tiny fraction found in a normal serving of peanut butter. College students were alarmed when they found that an average serving of beer contained almost 10,000 times as much UDMH as Alar-coated apples. In the end, the National Cancer Institute declared that the cancer risk of the amount of Alar on an apple was non-existent. However, apple growers already withdrew Alar in anticipation of public action, which totaled the cost to growers at over a million dollars.

Numerous items today are debatable in terms of their effects. Coffee, bacon, diet soda, and other items have been listed as harmful and then healthy and continue the back and forth. Questions arise as to whether or not the government, and specifically the FDA, is getting too much power. The FDA positions are filled by presidential appointments who then hire other workers in the agency. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is in charge, again another presidential appointee. The Secretary of HHS implements regulations. A Progressive Secretary of HHS would implement a lot of regulations as Progressives favor more government control of decisions. The Food Safety Bill signed by President Obama gives the FDA more power since the agency can now demand food recalls (they use to just recommend recalls - you the consumer could still take a chance if you wanted) and has control over imports (the FDA has the ability to deny imports - what if it's a food you like?). The FDA can also conduct more inspections on the makers of food and medicines. While the FDA is able to enforce the Pure Food and Drug Act as well as the Meat Inspection Act, to see that the FDA/government is best able to handle the problem of healthy food isn't the full story.


 * 3. How does the FDA increase government power? Do you agree with the "food police" banning or taxing what they believe to be unhealthy? Explain**

Click here to continue