Thread: Do you trust the FDA?

I don't know much about them. But one of the things I have against them is the whole Donald Rumsfeld Aspartame incident. I don't remember the details, its been a long time since I looked it up, but the FDA knew Aspartame could cause health problems and Rumsfeld still somehow managed to get them to approve it.

I recommend watching the documentary Food Inc. It will answers all of your questions.

You can probably download it online pretty easily (not that I would condone such an activity ).

YES! I second Food Inc. I watched that last week, it's a damn good movie. Monsanto is the devil!

hahaa, my hubby worked for Monsanto some 30 years ago or so.
I'll have to check out the movie as well.
Hubby is always griping about the FDA. He's been stockpiling and recycling certain vitamins for a couple years now. He says the FDA are trying to make them prescription only or somesuch.
Then again, hubby prescribes to a LOT of conspiracy theories so I take his grumbles with a grain of salt.

Well, Monsanto bullied Wholefoods and Organic Valley companies into siding with them to pressure Obama into passing a bill that makes GMOs allowed to be in organic food without any labels. And of course, Obama passed the bill. I don't know how that applies to the FDA, except that the FDA has approved of GMOs a long time ago when all the evidence shows that it is harmful. Don't ask me for evidence, this is heresay, just research it yourself if you don't believe me. The FDA also made many herbs illegal to sell or buy because of Monsanto. Zhaylin, your hubby is right. The FDA makes many vitamins and herbs illegal so that only pharmaceuticals are allowed, thus making the pharmaceutical companies have a monopoly on medicines. Meanwhile Monsanto GMs Organisms (plants and herbs) and patents them so that anybody who saves the seeds and grows the plant or herb is arrested, and fined, their farm taken away, even if the seeds blew in from another farm, or the GM plants cross-pollinate with non-GMO plants, Monsanto owns them. FDA approved this because they are owned, like any federal organization. It is all owned by big business. It is all corporate interests.

I like how milk that comes from cows treated with bovine growth hormones don't require labeling. Yet the FDA strongly advises that milk from cows that are not treated(as in normal cows) with bovine growth hormones be labeled as "Having no significant difference". On a related note, when companies like Wal-Mart, who are all about the profits, ban something from their store because they don't think it's safe to eat or drink, it makes me really nervous. Though the FDA does say it is safe.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Why or why not? I'm having a really difficult time doing research on a consumer good that is fully and unquestionably supported by the FDA, when many independent studies are in direct opposition about the safety of it.

Are you in any position to evaluate the validity of the studies? If so, and you conclude that they're valid, then I say fuck the FDA. Much like most regulatory departments, it pretty much has a revolving door between itself and industry executives. Without even having to resort to speculating about conspiracy theories, there's just too much room for in-group dynamics and the sort of subconscious quid pro quo that comes with it for me to take them seriously over independent research.

This may or may not be applicable to your particular situation but, in the absence of definitive data either way, I tend to favor placing substances in my body that were present and used in the ancestral environment for the simple reason that our bodies are more likely to be able to cope with them. See for example wheat allergies and potential connections between omega-3/omega-6 ratio and mental illness. This isn't fool proof but it's a good heuristic if that helps.

Do you not consume dairy products? :V

No, why would you trust any part of the government? They're taking cutbacks from pharmaceutical companies to approve drugs too.

I think I saw it on Food Inc. but maybe an article I read somewhere, maybe both. I can't remember atm, but basically, you will be very hard pressed to find a member of the FDA who is not tied to companies who get things approved by the FDA. There may even be no independent people whatsoever in the whole organisation.

From what I have read it is basically a useless department of government. Even with the "transparency" that is law now (they have to declare their income from companies) it doesn't make a difference, they can still make any decision they want without any scientific reason. They just have to declare that they are getting paid off. It's the same in Australia too.

England has a pretty good system I think. If something is called in to question as to it's safety, they ban it straight away, but then review the evidence. Sort of a better to be safe than sorry thing. Of course it doesn't always work, because they still are biased and want to ban some things for whatever reason.

What product are you talking about anyway?

Originally Posted by Xei

Do you not consume dairy products? :V

In the absence of definitive evidence either way

I personally don't have a milk allergy but there are a lot of people that do. Contrast with the amount of people that have a carrot allergy.

Im lactose intolerant but it doesnt bum me out, I have always thought drinking another animals breast milk is a little gross even when I was a kid.
But no I wouldnt trust the FDA, Tommo is right a good majority of people high up in the FDA are former Monsanto employees.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I have always thought drinking another animals breast milk is a little gross even when I was a kid.

I never really stopped and thought about that, thanks for ruining milk for me

Sorry Raphael
but ninja turtles NEED pizza

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

In the absence of definitive evidence either way

I personally don't have a milk allergy but there are a lot of people that do. Contrast with the amount of people that have a carrot allergy.

I thought it was known for sure that we've only consumed dairy since the agricultural revolution?

miscommunication. It's known for sure that we've only consumed dairy (restricted to milk: in this country dairy also includes eggs somehow ) since the agricultural revolution.

What I'm saying is that in the absence of data about the health effects of something, err towards sticking to our evolutionary baseline. So my heuristic would rule out dairy. Sure enough, some people are allergic to proteins contained in it. A lot of people aren't and so my heuristic would prevent people from eating it that could. On the other hand, I stress in the absence of data. So we know that it doesn't hurt most people so my heuristic doesn't apply to milk.

EDIT: That's not clear at all.

Here it is:

1) Is it known that the substance has ill effects on health?
yes) don't eat it
no) procede to step two.

2) Is it know that the substance has no ill effects on health?
yes) have at it.
no) proced to step 3

3) Was consuming the substance part of our ancestral environment?
yes) It's probably safe.
no) It may not be safe.

So for milk, the answer is (for most people)

1) no
2) yes
outcome) have at it.

and we never get to step 3.

Well it was for a group presentation...which we already gave...so it's after the fact now. I just really resented the fact that my group member made me feel like an idiot for daring to question the FDA. Our subject was aspartame. This group member wanted to present it as completely safe, but I found too much conflicting research, even though the FDA has declared numerous times that it is safe. When I mentioned about the Monsanto people now working for the FDA, and that all the research that says that aspartame is safe was done by aspartame sponsored research studies I was basically ridiculed as buying into the conspiracy theories. I know that there are lots of conspiracy theories, and I'm not interested in those. What caught my attention was in going through various research and understanding why all these scientists are finding problems that the FDA declares do not exist. But basically this guy in my group was like...how dare you question the FDA. It just made me wonder if they are considered trustworthy or not.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

In the absence of definitive evidence either way

I personally don't have a milk allergy but there are a lot of people that do. Contrast with the amount of people that have a carrot allergy.

Not many people have a milk allergy. It's mostly lactose intolerance. Which isn't an allergy.
And contradictory to your heuristic. Your third question applies the most out of any of your questions, and you ruled it unneeded.

It has been found that people who had ancestors who consumed milk are much less likely to have lactose intolerance or milk allergies. Whereas people who didn't have ancestors who consumed milk are a lot more likely to have them. For example almost everyone in China is lactose intolerant.

EDIT: Oh and don't worry Nina, we're on your side. Send the closed minded prick to this thread lol

To be honest Aquanina, i don't trust the FDA. Most of the foods they approve for us to eat, aren't good for you. It leaves an acid-base in the body. White sugar is the worse. It is a drug, is highly addictive and dangerous, yet it's in everything we eat and drink. And you wonder why people in this society have a short attention span and look so dead, miserable, and stressed.

An acid body is a magnet for sickness, disease, cancer and ageing. Alkaline food keep your body healthy and pH balanced, thereby preventing diseases. The human body needs an 80% alkaline, 20% acid diet, for optimal energy and to stay disease free.

I don't know if it's intentional or not, but diseases fuel the pharmaceutical companies. All these pills that are supposed to HELP you, leave you with side effects that's worse than the thing it's supposed to be curing.

Madness.

What your post would look like if we weren't allowed to talk bullshit.

Originally Posted by Majestic

White sugar is the worse. It is a drug, is highly addictive and dangerous, yet it's in everything we eat and drink. And you wonder why people in this society have a short attention span and look so dead, miserable, and stressed.

I haven't seen the movie Food Inc. But I'm betting it reiterates everything I just said.

The food you eat in this society is eating you. It's not a conspiracy. It's scientific fact. Any food that is refined/processed is not good for you. Only natural foods are best for the human body. Raw fresh foods actually cure and prevent diseases

Originally Posted by tommo

Not many people have a milk allergy. It's mostly lactose intolerance. Which isn't an allergy.
And contradictory to your heuristic. Your third question applies the most out of any of your questions, and you ruled it unneeded.

How is it contradictory to my heuristic? We don't need the third question in this case because we already have data on milk allergies. Also, why is the fact that lactose intolerance is common but milk allergies aren't contradictory to my heuristic? I didn't mention allergies in it's statement at all. I was just taking milk allergies as an example.

It has been found that people who had ancestors who consumed milk are much less likely to have lactose intolerance or milk allergies. Whereas people who didn't have ancestors who consumed milk are a lot more likely to have them. For example almost everyone in China is lactose intolerant.

This is only supporting what I'm saying. However it won't always be the case which is why I rule specific and concrete data more important than a consideration of our evolutionary past.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

How is it contradictory to my heuristic?

Because you didn't go to the third question. Which tells you that it is harmful to some people. Because their ancestors did not drink milk.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Also, why is the fact that lactose intolerance is common but milk allergies aren't contradictory to my heuristic?

It's not. That was a separate statement.

Originally Posted by Majestic

I haven't seen the movie Food Inc. But I'm betting it reiterates everything I just said.

The food you eat in this society is eating you. It's not a conspiracy. It's scientific fact. Any food that is refined/processed is not good for you. Only natural foods are best for the human body. Raw fresh foods actually cure and prevent diseases

Good luck getting any natural foods.
The foods we grow using modern agriculture have been specifically chosen to provide the best taste and nutrients and the most fruit/seeds/vegetables etc.

Processed foods are generally shit, yes. But that's only because they have all the nutrients taken out and flavouring chucked in with no nutritional value whatsoever.
Why the fuck would raw food cure or prevent disease?
There is no mechanism for it to do so.

Go eat raw meat for a few days and see how good you feel. Or unprocessed soy beans (you will die) .

Originally Posted by tommo

Because you didn't go to the third question. Which tells you that it is harmful to some people. Because their ancestors did not drink milk.

But the reason that the third question is "guarded" by the other two is that the fact that something wasn't part of the ancestral environment is not enough a priori to conclude that it's bad for us. So it's perfectly possible that milk wouldn't be bad for us. We know that it is for some people, so we don't ever need to get to the third question. The third question is just a rough guess that should do an adequate job of approximating the truth in the absence of concrete data but will not necessarily do so in all cases.

We have concrete data about lactose intolerance and so we can look for symptoms, specific heuristics (e.g. Chinese ancestry) and apply tests to determine the health effects for specific individuals.