Editorial: Don′t Weaken Protections on Food and Drug Safety Parkton News

September 28

1

It is hard to understand why the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become a punching bag for politicians and business people who complain about federal regulations and laws. The FDA tries to make sure that food and medicines are safe, and what is wrong with that?

2

Critics who claim we are better off without the FDA should take a good look at the poor and dangerous quality of food and drugs that once were sold to Americans. We take it for granted today that boxes of cereal and canned foods are not contaminated and are accurately labeled. We take it for granted that bottles of prescription and over-the-counter medicines show correct dosages and instructions for safe use, and that their contents have been tested by scientists before being sold. We take it for granted that cosmetics and personal hygiene products are made from ingredients that will not harm us. Yet in reality, we should never take our safe foods, drugs, or cosmetics for granted.

3

Many household products were definitely not safe before passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act. That law prohibited the interstate sale of tainted food and drugs that falsely advertised ingredients and remedies. Even so,

drug and food makers still found legal ways to sell dangerous products, forcing Congress to strengthen the existing law by passing the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938. The revision of the law in 1938 remains important to the FDA′s authority to this day. Does anybody really want to go back to the days when people did not know what they were ingesting or rubbing onto their skin?

4

For example, Lash-Lure was a product sold in the 1930s to unknowing consumers as an eyelash dye. Unfortunately, it blinded many women. Today, women still tint their eyelashes, but thanks to the FDA they can be assured they will not be blinded. Another tragedy that can be attributed to lack of regulation was the children′s medicine that killed more than 100 people in 1937. The medicine was produced using antifreeze. Under the scrutiny of the FDA, this cannot happen.

5

Food production has its own dark history. Until the twentieth century, American meat producers sold low-grade scraps that were processed in filthy factories. Upton

Sinclair′s 1906 novel The Jungle exposed the disgusting practices of Chicago′s meatpacking plants. Sinclair described the use of “old and crippled and diseased cattle to be canned” and unappetizing animal parts mixed into a product called “potted chicken.” He revealed that chemicals and heavy spices were added to give flavor to very low grade beef that people otherwise probably would not have been willing to eat.

6

Sinclair, ironically, was trying to expose the dangerous and unfair working conditions for newly arrived immigrants in the meatpacking plants. To his surprise, the scandal over the meat, and not the plight of the poorly treated workers, caught the public′s attention. His book outraged Americans, including President Theodore Roosevelt.

7

While Sinclair investigated unsafe food, Samuel Hopkins Adams investigated unsafe drugs. A reporter for Collier′s National Weekly, he wrote an 11-part series in 1905 and 1906 titled “The Great American Fraud.” He warned that cough medicines often contained narcotics such as cocaine and opium. A main ingredient of headache powders could cause heart attacks.

8

That was then, but now we are faced with the enormity of a global economy where products enter the market from every corner of the world. In 2007, tainted toothpaste produced in China appeared not only on store shelves but also in hospitals and prisons. Let us not forget about dog food recalls and the FDA shutting down a peanut processing factory to stop a salmonella outbreak, events that occurred in 2012. In the last three months of 2012, the FDA recalled 15 medical devices, 10 drugs, and 72 food products. Imagine what could have happened without FDA scrutiny.

9

The continued existence of unsafe products in our world should remind us of how lucky we are to have a federal agency that protects us from them. When critics of the FDA and governmental interference jump on a soapbox and start their foolish ranting, someone needs to remind them that the soap in that box won′t burn their skin thanks to the FDA.
Which hypothesis can be made based on details in the editorial?
A. Illnesses and deaths would result from weakening the FDA's power.
B. Consumers will not support any attempts to weaken the FDA's power.
C. Most companies would actually support strengthening FDA regulations.
D. Businesses would not try to mislead consumers if the FDA relaxed its regulations.