The FDA Should Be Abolished.

[Nathyn]

Since I've been here, I've found that you guys largely distinguish yourself from "bourgoisie liberals," so I'm curious as to your position on the FDA.

My opinion is this: The FDA should be mostly eliminated, because with lack of regulation, any person or group could sue the drug companies for selling bad drugs. This ensures drug companies would not sell bad drugs. Currently, the FDA is nothing more than an institution designed to favor pharmaceutical companies by:

1) Conducting safety tests for the drug companies, ensuring they have less expenses

2) Maintaining limited liability, so that if a drug company sells a bad drug, you can't sue the drug company and suing the government is rather problematic. In one non-drug related supreme court case, I remember there was a case where police had not come to a woman's aid after she called them because they didn't take the call seriously. The woman was killed and her family sued. The Supreme Court ruled that the government is required to provide security, but not "good security." By this same interpretation, the government is required to provide drug approval, but not "good drug approval."

3) Restricting the use of natural and alternative medicines, in order to promote the use of prescriptions.

Now, when I say we should "abolish the FDA," I don't mean literally. The FDA has many positive uses, particularly requiring proper labeling. In some ways, it should go beyond its current actions, such as requiring cigarettes to label ingredients (including nicotine content) and requiring soft drink companies to label caffeine content. Drug marketing, as an industry, should also be illegal. Pharmaceutical companies today are little more than legal drug peddlers, selling drugs to those who don't need them and giving "free samples," to doctor's office, with the intent of having them be disproportionately sold more than necessary and, of course, given to drug abusers on the street.

However, as a drug approver, the FDA is useless and counter-effective. Many examples can be found of useful drugs approved in foreign countries yet not approved by the FDA. And many examples can be found of drugs which were approved yet still were found to be harmful. In fact, I have seen no statistical evidence that, since the establishment of the FDA, that the amount of harmful drugs have decreased, period.

Many of you assert Capitalism only stays in existence because of economic intervention. This is one example. In fact, not too long ago, I remember a leaked memo showed that a pharmaceutical company had written one Republican Congressman's drug regulation proposal, word-for-word. They handed it off to him and he brought it to Congress.

[Phugebrins]

Revolutionary Left: The answer's in the name.
A revolution does not mean 'the right politicians sitting in the right seats'. It means getting rid of the entire political-economic system. Therefore the FDA, along with every other branch of 'bourgeois liberal' government will cease to exist. That takes care of the 'should' part.

On the other hand, a discussion on how organisations like the FDA work with regard to business interests and public accountability should prove interesting.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:51 PM
Revolutionary Left: The answer's in the name.
A revolution does not mean 'the right politicians sitting in the right seats'. It means getting rid of the entire political-economic system. Therefore the FDA, along with every other branch of 'bourgeois liberal' government will cease to exist. That takes care of the 'should' part.

On the other hand, a discussion on how organisations like the FDA work with regard to business interests and public accountability should prove interesting.
So, you're all mostly Anarchists and radical democrats??

[ComradeRed]

So, you're all mostly Anarchists and radical democrats?? Radical democrats, that's a good one! :lol:

We're Marxists, Anarcists, and overall anti-capitalists (just to cover anything I may be missing).

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Nathyn+Sep 2 2006, 10:51 PM--> (Nathyn @ Sep 2 2006, 10:51 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 10:51 PM
Revolutionary Left: The answer's in the name.
A revolution does not mean 'the right politicians sitting in the right seats'. It means getting rid of the entire political-economic system. Therefore the FDA, along with every other branch of 'bourgeois liberal' government will cease to exist. That takes care of the 'should' part.

On the other hand, a discussion on how organisations like the FDA work with regard to business interests and public accountability should prove interesting.
So, you're all mostly Anarchists and radical democrats?? [/b]
Why does everyone call democrats leftists? <_<

I would have thought the forum name, Che imagery, hammers and sickles, Anarchy is Order symbols, and red avatars would have given it away by now. :D

No one here (that&#39;s not restricted) is a liberal. The vast majority would be radical, or at least progressive.

EDIT: Meaning communists and anarchists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:39 PM
My opinion is this: The FDA should be mostly eliminated, because with lack of regulation, any person or group could sue the drug companies for selling bad drugs. This ensures drug companies would not sell bad drugs.
Would it? If the FDA is biased towards drug companies - and it is - what makes you think the court system is less biased?

Now that&#39;s an institution which clearly exists primarily to guard capitalist property.

This strikes me as sort of a right-wing "free marketeer" or "libertarian" criticism - seeing "big government" as the main problem in a classless way. There is, of course, plenty of historical experience how this approach works in the real world - the heyday of the snake-oil companies which the market brought us - and the legal system did little to prevent.

Today, we&#39;ve got the wonderful world of herbal "natural supplements" - unregulated by the FDA - which are the modern-day snake-oil. They&#39;re often contaminated with other substances, the main ingredient may be known to be unsafe. (Some fly-by-night manufacturers don&#39;t seem much worried about lawsuits.) Even at best, they&#39;re rarely scientifically tested for safety and effectiveness.

So no, the market and the wonderful, unbiased, capitalist legal system will not ensure safe and effective drugs. They certainly won&#39;t do better than the FDA; available experience suggests they might do much worse.

A working-class approach would emphasize, instead, how all branches of the state machinery serve the owners of capital. Immediately, demanding they enforce their own rules and restrict the most abusive practices of the pharmaceutical companies. And aiming towards the replacement of the capitalist state machinery with a government of, by, and for working people.


Currently, the FDA is nothing more than an institution designed to favor pharmaceutical companies

Well, that may be. It&#39;d be interesting to go back and look at how it was founded, and who pushed for it. Might be that it was indeed founded at the request of pharmaceutical companies to limit their legal liability. Or it might be that it was a response to pressure from working people and middle-class reformers (the famous "muckrackers".)

I know G. William Domhoff showed how workers&#39; compensation laws were actually written by employers&#39; representatives to limit their legal liability for workplace injuries.

Does that mean it would make sense for working people, today, to focus on the demand to abolish workers&#39; compensation laws, regarding the bourgeois court system as a cure-all? No. A futile attempt to roll back the clock. Instead...see above.


3) Restricting the use of natural and alternative medicines, in order to promote the use of prescriptions.

"Natural and alternative medicines" are a business like any other. See above.

The safety and effectiveness of a medicine - natural or otherwise - can either be scientifically proven, or it can&#39;t. A medicine can&#39;t work in some "alternative" way, and no claims that one does should be allowed.

And if you think something "natural" is necessarily safe and good - well, hemlock and deadly nightshade are as natural as it gets.

And of course there&#39;s no reason a pharmaceutical company couldn&#39;t make big bucks off a herbal or "alternative" medicine - if it&#39;s safety and effectiveness can be proven, and if it can be supplied in quantity without harvesting the plant to extinction.....

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+Sep 3 2006, 12:06 AM--> (ComradeRed &#064; Sep 3 2006, 12:06 AM)

So, you&#39;re all mostly Anarchists and radical democrats?? Radical democrats, that&#39;s a good one&#33; :lol:

We&#39;re Marxists, Anarcists, and overall anti-capitalists (just to cover anything I may be missing).[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:51 PM

[email protected] 2 2006, 10:51 PM
Revolutionary Left: The answer&#39;s in the name.
A revolution does not mean &#39;the right politicians sitting in the right seats&#39;. It means getting rid of the entire political-economic system. Therefore the FDA, along with every other branch of &#39;bourgeois liberal&#39; government will cease to exist. That takes care of the &#39;should&#39; part.

On the other hand, a discussion on how organisations like the FDA work with regard to business interests and public accountability should prove interesting.
So, you&#39;re all mostly Anarchists and radical democrats??
Why does everyone call democrats leftists? <_<

I would have thought the forum name, Che imagery, hammers and sickles, Anarchy is Order symbols, and red avatars would have given it away by now. :D

No one here (that&#39;s not restricted) is a liberal. The vast majority would be radical, or at least progressive.

EDIT: Meaning communists and anarchists.
When I said "radical democrats," I meant the political system, direct democracy, not the party. People here either advocate Anarchism or Council Communism, right?

[YSR]

Or other stuff. They&#39;ll call it "Marxism."

[Comrade Kurtz]

Perhaps the FDA isn&#39;t as proficient as we would like but it&#39;s important to remember who promted the FDA&#39;s creation: Upton Sinclair, author of "The Jungle". Really what we need is a reform in the FDA to tighten things up. Need I remind you what things were like before it existed? Does "meat-packing" ring any bells?

[cccpcommie]

so when you have a illness..what are you going to do? give the medication to a capitalist first and see if he dies? there would be some need of an FDA why? cuz im going to be a doctor and im not killing anyone with lousy drugs.

[Nathyn]

I agree, regarding the comments made about about "snake-oil." However, a distinction must be made: Under current law, people may not make even true claims regarding natural supplements. On the one hand, this is good, because every time a scam artist like Kevin Trudeau makes such claims, the text pops up, "These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not designed to treat or cure any disease."

But on the other hand, there are actually natural supplements which can treat and cure diseases. The FDA restricts sale of good supplements along with the conmen. And not only that, even I&#39;d say that they don&#39;t even do a good enough job of restricting conmen. We live in a "fine-print" society where a merchant may lie on television provided that, immediately after the lie, there is small, virtually unreadable text at the bottom of the screen for a split second. So, such conmen should not be allowed to make false claims, period. But natural supplement dealers should be allowed to sell the products provided that they&#39;re honest.

In any case, the only main dispute I&#39;ve seen with abolishing the FDA so far has been that the court system is biased towards property rights and therefore cannot be trusted. Well, then, the answer is simple: Reform the court system. If courts were fair, companies could be easily sued because it&#39;s impossible to hide the fact that a drug is bad. The FDA should still continue doing drug-testing, but there should be no "approval process," because history has shown that it causes not decrease in harmful drugs but makes good drugs sit on the shelf for years.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:04 PM
I agree, regarding the comments made about about "snake-oil." However, a distinction must be made: Under current law, people may not make even true claims regarding natural supplements.
Sure they can. If their claims can be scientifically proven to be true, they can get these "supplements" approved as drugs, just like anything else that can be proven to be safe and effective. There&#39;s no special prohibition that says drugs can&#39;t be herbs or anything else. (Except for all that wackiness in the narcotics laws, prohibitions on medical marijuana and so forth.)

The problem is, that they have a special exemption allowing them to market their snake-oil as "supplements." They are regulated neither as drugs nor as food. Thanks to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,429341,00.html) which was pushed through by lobbyists for the "supplement" industry. You might want to read that article.

They put out a lot of corporate PR disguised as grassroots advocacy - what&#39;s sometimes called "astroturf". Gotta wonder if you&#39;ve been influenced by some of it.

Actually, the FDA only wanted to regulate the "supplements" as food - so standards woulda been much lower than for drugs. Even that was unacceptable to the snake-oil manufacturers.


In any case, the only main dispute I&#39;ve seen with abolishing the FDA so far has been that the court system is biased towards property rights and therefore cannot be trusted. Well, then, the answer is simple: Reform the court system.

Tell ya what: when the court system is free of class bias, I&#39;ll agree with you about abolishing the FDA.

&#39;Til then, I&#39;ll stick with the approach I suggested earlier: fight the class bias of both, and work towards a revolution that will smash the whole bourgeois state machine.


The FDA should still continue doing drug-testing, but there should be no "approval process," because history has shown that it causes not decrease in harmful drugs but makes good drugs sit on the shelf for years.

History has shown that? There are as many harmful drugs today as before the creation of the FDA? Would you say there&#39;s as much adulterated food, too? How much do you know about that period?

Somebody mentioned Sinclair&#39;s "The Jungle" - a character in it expresses another theory about why the government was moving towards regulating some industries. Basically he said it had to do with the conflicts among the different Trusts.

It is contrary to the interests of the capitalist class as a whole, to allow wholly unrestrained abuses by one industry. Can cut into the profits of the others. Even aside from the working-class response.

[Comrade Ben]

After the abolishment of the current organizations, shouldnt there be some kind of "FDA" figure, though? Otherwise, severe lacking quality food or drugs could be produced, and distributed, with no one knowing.

[Janus]

Moved to Politics.

[LSD]

"Abolishing" the FDA is a meaningless proposal, unless you mean it as part of a general deconstruction of the bourgeois state.

As long as capitalism exists, we need some mechanism to control the pharmaceutical industry. The only thing that "history has shown" with regards to drugs, is that when money&#39;s involved, people will promote anything as "medicine".

And since no one wants to go back to nineteenth century "quackery", even if you get rid of the FDA, someone else will just do the job instead.

Corporations cannot be trusted to "police themselves"&#33;


Restricting the use of natural and alternative medicines, in order to promote the use of prescriptions.

The FDA doesn&#39;t "restrict" the use of "alternative" medicine, in fact if anything, it&#39;s more lenient than it is on "traditional" drugs. Herbs and vitamins aren&#39;t required to demonstrate efficacy or use to get approved and, unlike with man-made pharmaceuticals, experimential data is rarely asked for.

But then, of course, there isn&#39;t that much experimential data on the subject out there. The reason for that, however, isn&#39;t the "bias" of the FDA, but the natural bias of capitalism.

That bias, of course, is towards making money and there&#39;s no money to be made in researching unpatentable medicines.

Orthomolecular research isn&#39;t done because its an intrinsically unprofitable field. Eliminating the FDA (and its like organizations, e.g., the NIH) would only serve to eliminate the few organizations in the field that are actually geared around doing real research.

Are they particularly good at it? Of course not. &#39;Cause they still operate within a cpaitalist environment and so are influenced thereof, but they still do a much better job than the "free market" would if it were left to its own.

Do you know what one of the best drugs at reducing cholesterol is? Niacin. You know why you never hear about it? &#39;Cause niacin is also known as vitamin B3.

We don&#39;t need less public participation in pharmaceutical research, we need more. The reason that the FDA doesn&#39;t approve "supplements" to treat diseases is because they are specifically not marketed as drugs.

If they were, they would be obligated to provide data to back up their claims. But accumulating valid data takes time and costs money and its much easier to just slap a "supplement" label on the side than go through the expense of actually proving its efficacy.

And as long as medicine remains a for-profit business, that&#39;s going to be the case. Even the "supplement"-pushers don&#39;t really have an interest in establishing medical validity, because the moment that its proven that a specific vitamin or herb has value, everyone else will start selling it.

But as long as they shun science and stay in this semi-mystical world of "alternative medicine", they can promote their "blend" as somehow "special".

That&#39;s the great tragedy of nutritional medicine; there&#39;s so much potential in the field, but no one&#39;s doing the work.

Unfortunately, it looks like the only way to change that is to eviscerate capitalism. And it doesn&#39;t appear that that&#39;s on the immediate horizon. :(


However, as a drug approver, the FDA is useless and counter-effective.

Well, it depends on what you mean. Obviously the FDA, like the rest of the American goverrnment, is thoroughly in the hands of "big business", but its still far less biased than the "free market" would be.

At least the state needs to maintain a semblence of objectivity and legitimacy. All that a corporation has to do is keep its market cap high.

No organization should have the authority to dictate what can or cannot be consumed, whether its the FDA, Health Canada, or the UN. But someone needs to monitor and control marketing and labeling.

If you want to drink poison, that&#39;s your business, but you have the right to know that it&#39;s poison. And since the company selling it to you has no interest in informing you, someone else needs to do it.

In mixed-economy capitalism that someone else can pretty much only be the state. In another system, there&#39;d be other options. But as it is, the FDA is the lesser of two evils.

So basically, we&#39;re stuck with it.

[Koji Ishiguro]

Originally posted by Ace [email protected] 8 2006, 07:57 PM
Do you know what one of the best drugs at reducing cholesterol is? Niacin. You know why you never hear about it? &#39;Cause niacin is also known as vitamin B6.
Isn&#39;t Niacin vitamin B3? Don&#39;t want people to get the wrong B-vitamin now do we?

[LSD]

Fixed. ;)