| | I am going to have to weigh in here with a warning against "govern-mentality." If scientifically validated testing showed no curative value to chicken soup, I would still continue to make it every time I felt a cold coming on, which I do now anyway and have done for decades. (I start with a fryer or broiler, depending on which birds looks best in the case. More on my recipes later.) There was one time, I was training offsite in North Carolina and I knew I was getting sick, but I was in a strange city. First day, all I could find was Chinese, so I went for the Hot & Sour. Close, but not good enough. Next night, on my way back to the motel, there flashed the sign: NATES NEW YORK DELI. I went in. "Homemade" chicken soup was on the menu. I asked about it and the waitress assured me at that no two bowls were the same: it was made by hand in small batches. I had three bowls. She offered me a fourt, but I declined. She took a closer look at me and said, "I''ve heard it called Jewish penicillin, but I never believed it til now." I was fine for the rest of the week. "Scientific" studies (so-called) deny individuality. Chicken soup is my elixir. I assert a perfect right to sell it on that basis to anyone who wants to buy "Mike's Jewish Penicillin."
Now, to be sure, the FDA has its casus belli.
“Sulfanilamide, a drug used to treat streptococcal infections, had been shown to have dramatic curative effects and had been used safely for some time in tablet and powder form. In June 1937, however, a salesman for the S.E. Massengill Co., in Bristol, Tenn., reported a demand in the southern states for the drug in liquid form. The company's chief chemist and pharmacist, Harold Cole Watkins, experimented and found that sulfanilamide would dissolve in diethylene glycol. The company control lab tested the mixture for flavor, appearance, and fragrance and found it satisfactory. Immediately, the company compounded a quantity of the elixir and sent shipments--633 of them--all over the country.
“The new formulation had not been tested for toxicity. At the time the food and drugs law did not require that safety studies be done on new drugs. Selling toxic drugs was, undoubtedly, bad for business and could damage a firm's reputation, but it was not illegal.
“Because no pharmacological studies had been done on the new sulfanilamide preparation, Watkins failed to note one characteristic of the solution. Diethylene glycol, a chemical normally used as an antifreeze, is a deadly poison.
Ballentine, Carol, "Taste of Raspberries, Taste of Death: The 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide Incident." FDA Consumer Magazine, June 1981, http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/elixir.html
I point out that in the absence of the FDA, there would be businesses such as Underwriter's Laboratories and Consumer Reports and the American Society for Testing and Materials who validate and verfiy the claims made by sellers of a wide range of products.
On the other hand, I never buy food from Mexico, not even "organic" food from Mexico sold by Whole Foods. I do not trust them. I do trust the Canadians, however. Furthermore, I point out that Massengill is still in business. If they had been Bubba's Nascar White Lightening Emporium, they would not have been so resilient, i.e., not so cozy with the FDA, as to weather the storm of poisoning
Ultimately, each of us is responsible for our own outcomes. It might seem odd that Massengill could get away with murder. Such failures of the legal system derive from personal failures. That is why our efforts for a better world start with philosophy, not with politics. For an example of someone with integrity working for the FDA, consider this:
The FDA also takes credit for the preventing the worst effects of the thalidomide disaster. Although 1200 babies were born deformed in Germany, the UK and elsewhere, only 17 tragedies occurred in the USA. Francis Kelsey was newly hired as a reviewer for the FDA when an American firm applied for a license to market thalidomide. Kelsey’s own experiences with quinine and pregnant women in the 1940s led her to press for more information. What she got was more akin to sales literature than a medical review. She declined six applications. Finally, news of the tragedy spread. At first, reports were sketchy. However, when The Lancet carried a warning letter, the facts became known to all.
Again, of course, it was the reputation of The Lancet -- which has no legal authority -- that halted the thalidomide disaster. But in the USA, it was one woman committed to the facts as she knew them that was the fail-safe.
So, I cite these cases to show that I am not ignorant of the important role played by the FDA. That said, the successes must be put into an appropriate context. I have a right to chicken soup and Vitamin C because I say so. I also have a right to sell them to anyone who wants them. Any independent lab in business for a profit has a right to buy my products and test them as they want, and then report their findings to anyone who wants to pay for that service. I believe that in such a world, the horrors of the past would be unlikely to impossible.
|
|
