The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged with the tasks of regulating and promoting safety in foods, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, radiation-emitting items, tobacco products, and animal foods and veterinary treatments and products.
I am concerned with increasing indications that the FDA is not working for us appropriately in fulfilling these tasks. Controversies have long abounded regarding whether the FDA's institutional culture contributes to approvals of both drugs and food products, for example certain artificial sweeteners, on insufficient or questionable industry representations of safety. The many horrors and toxins present in our cosmetics, as described in well-supported detail by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, certainly create the impression that the FDA just blew off cosmetic regulation on the theory that cosmetics aren't supposed to be ingested, so who cares if there's lead in lipstick (which there is).
Most Americans, and people elsewhere around the world, used to assume that products sold in the US were most assuredly the most modern and safe consumer goods in the world. Now, it is increasingly clear that the EU is taking a much more stringent line on protecting consumer safety with restrictions on chemicals in food, cosmetics and tobacco, and limitations on pharmeceuticals, far more stringent and protective than those in the United States.
When it comes to food security, now even the FDA itself is admitting its shortcomings. In a newly released report entitled Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality, the FDA notes that about 66% of American's vegetables and 80% of our seafood is imported from foreign countries. (Half the medical devices and over 80% of active pharmaceutical components are also imported.)
While at least some American consumers are concerned that our American food safety and agricultural chemical regulations are not adequate to protect our health, these imported foods are not even subject to these insufficient American regulations. We have no idea whatsoever what growing methods or chemicals or processing techniques have been used on garlic from China and asparagus from Argentina. While in theory there are FDA spot-checks of stuff coming in, in reality most of it passes from shipping port to plate with nary a glance by anyone other than grocery store shelf-stocking clerks.
The increasingly complexities of this import system are described well in n a June 22, 2011 article in The Atlantic by New York University Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health professor Marion Nestle.
What I don't understand, however, is why in the most fertile and agriculturally productive nation on the planet, we are importing 66% of our produce, and with two long coastlines, why we are importing 80% of our seafood. If the FDA called me and asked for suggestions, I suppose I might propose we grow less high-chemical-intensive lawns and less dubiously-efficient ethanol and feed our people instead -- helping to make fresh fruits and veggies and seafood and affordable, healthy part of our daily consumption, improving our health and lowering our health-care costs in the process. But hey, they don't call me.
I have to concur with the suggestions of Mike Lieberman, author of the really fun blog The Urban Organic Gardener, that we grow our own food, shop farmers markets, join a CSA, and when that isn't enough, buy organic, American produce at the grocery store. (Ditto for seafood -- take your kids fishing, buy from fisherman at the dock and local seafood stores, and be sure to ask what the origin is of any seafood you buy elsewhere.)
But beyond that, I think it is seriously time to make restructuring the FDA and redefining its mission a top priority. Years ago, environmentalists targeted the USDA Forest Service, as it had developed an institutional culture that was far too intertwined with the large-scale wood products industry and had blinders on regarding making appropriate decisions to safeguard our public lands and natural and timber resources. While it was a bumpy ride for a number of years, the Forest Service today is a whole new agency, and my experience with them is that they now have a fabulous institutional outlook, dedicated to serving the public and making supportable, transparent decisions supporting the resources they have been entrusted to manage. (That's not to say I always agree with them, but boy, dealing with the USFS from the 1970's to today is like night and day.)
It is time for American citizens to turn their sites on the FDA in the same manner, demanding accountability and transparency. Get the conversation started with a note to your Congressional representatives linked to the recent FDA report, and let them know you want safe food -- and confidence in the folks who are supposed to be guarding the garden gate.
I am concerned with increasing indications that the FDA is not working for us appropriately in fulfilling these tasks. Controversies have long abounded regarding whether the FDA's institutional culture contributes to approvals of both drugs and food products, for example certain artificial sweeteners, on insufficient or questionable industry representations of safety. The many horrors and toxins present in our cosmetics, as described in well-supported detail by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, certainly create the impression that the FDA just blew off cosmetic regulation on the theory that cosmetics aren't supposed to be ingested, so who cares if there's lead in lipstick (which there is).
Most Americans, and people elsewhere around the world, used to assume that products sold in the US were most assuredly the most modern and safe consumer goods in the world. Now, it is increasingly clear that the EU is taking a much more stringent line on protecting consumer safety with restrictions on chemicals in food, cosmetics and tobacco, and limitations on pharmeceuticals, far more stringent and protective than those in the United States.
When it comes to food security, now even the FDA itself is admitting its shortcomings. In a newly released report entitled Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality, the FDA notes that about 66% of American's vegetables and 80% of our seafood is imported from foreign countries. (Half the medical devices and over 80% of active pharmaceutical components are also imported.)
While at least some American consumers are concerned that our American food safety and agricultural chemical regulations are not adequate to protect our health, these imported foods are not even subject to these insufficient American regulations. We have no idea whatsoever what growing methods or chemicals or processing techniques have been used on garlic from China and asparagus from Argentina. While in theory there are FDA spot-checks of stuff coming in, in reality most of it passes from shipping port to plate with nary a glance by anyone other than grocery store shelf-stocking clerks.
The increasingly complexities of this import system are described well in n a June 22, 2011 article in The Atlantic by New York University Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health professor Marion Nestle.
What I don't understand, however, is why in the most fertile and agriculturally productive nation on the planet, we are importing 66% of our produce, and with two long coastlines, why we are importing 80% of our seafood. If the FDA called me and asked for suggestions, I suppose I might propose we grow less high-chemical-intensive lawns and less dubiously-efficient ethanol and feed our people instead -- helping to make fresh fruits and veggies and seafood and affordable, healthy part of our daily consumption, improving our health and lowering our health-care costs in the process. But hey, they don't call me.
I have to concur with the suggestions of Mike Lieberman, author of the really fun blog The Urban Organic Gardener, that we grow our own food, shop farmers markets, join a CSA, and when that isn't enough, buy organic, American produce at the grocery store. (Ditto for seafood -- take your kids fishing, buy from fisherman at the dock and local seafood stores, and be sure to ask what the origin is of any seafood you buy elsewhere.)
But beyond that, I think it is seriously time to make restructuring the FDA and redefining its mission a top priority. Years ago, environmentalists targeted the USDA Forest Service, as it had developed an institutional culture that was far too intertwined with the large-scale wood products industry and had blinders on regarding making appropriate decisions to safeguard our public lands and natural and timber resources. While it was a bumpy ride for a number of years, the Forest Service today is a whole new agency, and my experience with them is that they now have a fabulous institutional outlook, dedicated to serving the public and making supportable, transparent decisions supporting the resources they have been entrusted to manage. (That's not to say I always agree with them, but boy, dealing with the USFS from the 1970's to today is like night and day.)
It is time for American citizens to turn their sites on the FDA in the same manner, demanding accountability and transparency. Get the conversation started with a note to your Congressional representatives linked to the recent FDA report, and let them know you want safe food -- and confidence in the folks who are supposed to be guarding the garden gate.
No comments:
Post a Comment