http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/10/1982851/fda-slow-to-regulate-harmful-substances/
On Thursday, Wrigley announced that it would be pulling its controversial new “Alert Energy” gum — each stick of which contains as much caffeine as half a cup of coffee — from the market out of “respect” for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the agency investigates the public health risks associated with pumping caffeine into everyday foods and drink.
With energy products and other potentially harmful foods high in sugar, salt, and fat increasingly under public scrutiny, it’s worth asking: why can’t the FDA do more to crack down on these additives? And why does it take so long to get food makers to comply with regulations when they do?Answering that requires a brief foray intothe history of the American food safety regimen. 1958 was a seminal year for food oversight, seeing the passage of the Food Additives Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the creation of the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) List.Under the Food Additives Amendment, “any substance intentionally added to food is a food additive and is subject to pre-market approval by FDA unless the use of the substance is generally recognized as safe (GRAS).” So if a substance is on the GRASexemption list, then food makers can use it to their heart’s content without proving its safety, unless specifically prevented from doing so by an FDA regulation.The GRAS list contains over 700 items, many which have been there since 1958 — and taking an item off the GRAS list once it’s on is difficult. GRAS items are specificallydefined as substances that are “generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of [their] intended use.”Consequently, revoking a substance’s GRASdesignation requires considerable expert consensus that an item is not safe for its intended use.
Eisenhower was PRES. he was republican, just thatone sentence tells the true intent of that gov't.
Consequently, revoking a substance’s GRAS designation requires considerable expert consensus that an item is not safe for its intended use.
speaks to deception some of that stuff was either known or suspected to cause problems, which tends to point to early deregulation.
considerable experts were not for consensus they were to counter the unwanted opinion thereby null and voidind the phrase, considerable experts.
One might ask how salts, sugars, trans fats, and caffeine don’t fit that bill considering widespread evidence that those substances increase the risk ofheart disease, stroke, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, thereby harming public wellness and increasing U.S. health care costs. In fact, government watchdogs and medical groups such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have issued severalcalls for the FDA to crack down on those very ingredients.But an outright ban on any of those substances (other than trans fats) is impossible — and undesirable — since the majority of food items require them in at least some amount. Rather, it’s excess consumption that makes the substances potentially dangerous. That’s where the FDA can step in by issuing regulatory rules that either set targets or impose reductions in harmful food content. But that’s also where they meet their greatest obstacle: the powerful food lobby.
this just goes topointout the bueraocracy and why you can't blame the pres. for not getting all of his agenda in place this including the republicans.
