FDA Backs Off On Preventing Antibiotic Use In Animals for Human Consumption

As an American citizen, I'd like to believe that governmental agencies are working for the best interests of myself and millions of other Americans just like me. When I read information such as the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has reversed its stand on disapproving the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals, I have to wonder just who is being protected and why.

Just a year and a half ago, the FDA took the stance that it would act on withdrawing its approval of the use of antibiotics in these animals because of the preponderance of evidence available that this use of medications is creating antibiotic-resistant organisms in the meat that is then passed to humans.

I have to think that big-money interests have influenced the decision of the FDA on this matter -- and that idea is repugnant to me. Without the FDA providing replicated scientific studies that refute the fact that the use of antibiotics in animals is not detrimental to the health of humans, I cannot think of any other plausible reason for this federal agency back-pedaling on this issue.

I may not have all the facts, so I'd like to know your thoughts on this issue. Do you have strong feelings on the use of antibiotics in animals in our food supply or is this a non-issue for you?

Graphic Pictures on Cigarette Labels Banned...For Now

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in its wisdom and aching desire to rid the nation of cigarette smoke, had issued new guidelines for warnings required on cigarette packages and advertisement, set to go into effect September 2012. The guidelines require the inclusion of graphic images on packaging and advertising material of the effects of smoking, including a body in the morgue, a mouth with cancer and a man with a tracheotomy.

I applaud the underlying goals of the graphic image warnings: to keep kids from smoking and encouraging smokers to quit. I think the method chosen to do this is inappropriate. Today, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon agreed, blocking the measure from going into action until a lawsuit brought by tobacco makers can be heard.

Tobacco companies have filed a lawsuit against the requirement for graphic images based on the First Amendment's right to free speech.

Imagine if every bottle, can or pitcher of alcohol contained graphic pictures, such as mangled cars and bodies. Would Twinkies and other junk food soon contain pictures of obese people, clogged arteries and fatty livers?

Whatever your stance is on tobacco smoking, how do you feel about the use of graphic images on packaging?

EU Bans BPA: FDA Still Studies the Issue

There are sufficient indications that bisphenol-A, or BPA, poses threats to the health of humans that the European Union, with its 27 member countries, have banned the chemical's use in the manufacture of baby bottles beginning March 2011. Canada was the first country to do so, along with France, Denmark and some of the U.S. states. It's the federal government who just can't seem to get on-board with the ban.

A January 2010 statement issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about its position on the use of bisphenol-A is the manufacture of plastic food storage containers basically said that the federal department was waiting on the outcome of further research. The FDA is also welcoming public input on the topic. There is also a link provided in the statement for those who wish to better understand and act proactively on BPA.

Much scientific research has already been conducted on the untoward effects of this chemical that is a synthetic estrogen substance. Read more here...and here...and here. There is much more research available to the general public--and surely to the FDA.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California tried to add an amendment to a food safety bill up for vote, but the American Chemistry Council lobby squashed that attempt.

Is it also big business that is affecting the slowness of the FDA's move to ban bisphenol-A in the manufacture of baby bottles and children's cups? And why stop there? Shouldn't the chemical be banned in all manufacture--and not just in the United States, but in any products it imports?

There are so many things that capture the general public's attention, not the least of which is the current economic situation, but let's not be dissuaded from voicing our concerns to our elected officials on this important health topic. It's common sense.

Additional reading on bisphenol-A.

Food Safety Under Siege

The FDA has formally announced that cloned meat and products from cloned animals pose no health hazard or danger to consumers. Moreover, meat and products from cloned animals will not have to be labeled as such in the marketplace. Manufacturers may label them if they choose, but it is not mandatory to do so.

I'd like to believe this announcement was based on exhaustive or at least extensive testing, but the truth is, how can long term effects be determined when cloned animals is such a new science? We don't even know if present technology exists to test cloned meat and products, let alone believe long term effects could be determined.

What we DO know is that each cloned animal represents a $10,000 to $20,000 investment. People make those sort of investments in order to see a return on their money. A return on their money can only come when those cloned animals parent other animals that will be sold in a marketplace. And we also know that people who can afford to make that sort of an investment in one animal have more clout with government officials than any typical consumer does on any given day.

As worn out as my admonition may seem--we need to write our elected officials on this matter and let them know where we stand. And, if you have the time/space/ability, begin growing your own food, including animals, so you can be certain of the safety of your food.