Lies and deception: How the FDA does not protect your best interests.

http://hfn-usa.com/articles/030808.html

 

 

August 8, 2003Smart PublicationsHealth & Wellness Update Dear Friends, I

recently received an e-mail posing the question " How is it that every

industrialized nation in the world has banned Monsanto's rBGH as unsafe, but

it's legal (and unlabeled) in the United States? " [rBGH (recombinant Bovine

Growth Hormone) is a genetically engineered hormone that increases cow's milk

production by 15-25 percent.] Read this week's e-mail to learn the shocking

truth about how the food and pharmaceutical industries place their own

scientists and legal experts on scientific and government committees to ensure

passage of favorable rules and regulations… and why former FDA commissioner Dr.

Robert Liz once said, " What bothers me most is that people believe that the FDA

is protecting them.... " To your health John MorgenthalerClick here to read: Lies

and deception: How the FDA does not protect your best interests. " It is not our

purpose to endanger the financial interestof the pharmaceutical

companies. " FDA Commissioner Dr. Charles C. EdwardsDid you know that many

retired FDA officials go to work as special advisors to the pharmaceutical and

food industries? It's true. Federal agencies like the FDA—which were created to

protect consumers—often behave like branch offices of companies like Monsanto,

which they are supposed to regulate. And when the names and dossiers of the

individuals who work with allies in Congress and the White House to oppose food

safety measures are revealed, the picture becomes even more sinister.The fact

is, it has been widely reported that FDA (Federal Drug Administration), EPA

(Environmental Protection Agency), and USDA (United States Department of

Agriculture) officials are frequently rewarded with lucrative jobs at the

companies they were regulating. Conflict of interestThis insidious conflict of

interest exhibited by the U.S. food and pharmaceutical industries has been going

on for almost half a century. Mark Gold, founder of the Aspartame

Toxicity Information Center in Concord, New Hampshire (mgold)

provides an overview of the situation in his " Analysis of the influence of the

Aspartame Industry on the Scientific Committee on Food. " 1 " In the United States,

corruption of governmental and scientific committees by the food industry was

disclosed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In an article in the journal

Science (1972), it was revealed that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Food

Protection Committee was being funded by the food, chemical and packaging

industries. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration was relying on the NAS

Committee for 'independent' information. The Chairman of the NAS Subcommittee

investigating monosodium glutamate (MSG) had recently taken part in research

partially funded by the MSG manufacturer. Another member of the Subcommittee

became a spokesperson for the MSG industry. (Science 1972) Other members of the

Subcommittee had ties to the MSG industry. Since that time

numerous governmental committees have been corrupted by the placement of food

industry-funded consultants on these committees. " 2,3The revolving doorA recent

report by the Edmonds Institute lists names of the possible hundreds of men and

women who move in and out of " revolving doors " as Federal regulators and

directors, commissioners and scientists at the companies they are supposed to

regulate.4Close relationships between regulators and those they regulate are

always a cause of concern because the conflict of interest inevitably results in

the quality of regulation and oversight of a technology being compromised …

which inevitably results in the promotion of foods and drugs that are frequently

unsafe.The Edmonds Institute has been researching these relationships for some

time. Here are some examples: Margaret Miller … former chemical laboratory

supervisor for Monsanto, … now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and

Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center

for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug Administration

(FDA).5,6Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug

Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later

executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA,…still later a partner at the

law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose

clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, … still later Deputy

Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration, … and

later with the law firm of King & Spaulding … now head of the Washington, D.C.

office of Monsanto Corporation.5,6Margaret Miller, Michael Taylor, and Suzanne

Sechen (an FDA " primary reviewer for all rbST and other dairy drug production

applications " ) were the subjects of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)

investigation in 1994 for their role in the FDA's approval of Posilac, Monsanto

Corporation's formulation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbST

or rBGH). The GAO Office found " no conflicting financial interests with

respect to the drug's approval " and only " one minor deviation from now

superseded FDA regulations " . (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO report).The FDA

and Monsanto: Strange bedfellowsMonsanto was required to submit a scientific

report on rBGH to the FDA so the agency could determine the growth hormone's

safety. Margaret Miller put the report together, and in 1989 shortly before she

submitted the report, Miller left Monsanto to work for the FDA. Guess what her

first job was? Strangely enough, to determine whether or not to approve the

report she wrote for Monsanto! The bottom line is that Monsanto approved its

own report. Miller was assisted by another former Monsanto researcher, Susan

Sechen. But in an article titled " Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S.

Dairy Industry " Ché Green, founder and director of The ARMEDIA Institute, a

nonprofit research and advocacy organization focusing on farm animal

issues in the United States, writes that, " The results of the study, in fact,

were not made available to the public until 1998, when a group of Canadian

scientists obtained the full documentation and completed an independent analysis

of the results. Among other instances of neglect, the documents showed that the

FDA had never even reviewed Monsanto's original studies (on which the approval

for Posilac {rBGH} had been based), so in the end the point was moot whether or

not the report had contained all of the original data. " 7And as though the FDA

didn't already exhibit enough audacity it handed Michael Taylor the

responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not rBGH-derived milk

should be labeled. (At the time, Michael Taylor, who had previously worked as a

lawyer for Monsanto, was executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA.)In

1994, Taylor ended up writing the rBGH labeling guidelines that prohibit the

dairy industry from stating that their products either contain

or are free from rBGH. Even worse, to keep rBGH-milk from being " stigmatized "

in the marketplace, the FDA ruled that the labels of non-rBGH products must

state that there is no difference between rBGH and the natural

hormone.8According to journalist Jennifer Ferraro, " while working for

Monsanto,Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it

would be constitutional for states to erect labeling laws concerning rBGH dairy

products. In other words, Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the

corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that

their products were free of Monsanto's drug. " 9The current situationMonsanto is

suing Maine-based Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk " Our Farmers' Pledge:

No Artificial Growth Hormones. " According to Monsanto, Oakhurst Dairy does not

have the right to let its customers know whether its milk contains genetically

engineered hormones. What hogwash! Oakhurst says they've been labeling their

products like this for four years, in response to consumer demand. Although

rBGH has been banned in every industrialized nation in the world except for the

United States, Monsanto continues to claim that rBGH-derived milk is no

different from the natural stuff, despite documentation that rBGH milk contains

substantially higher levels of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1. This

poses a serious risk to the entire U.S. population, which is now exposed to high

levels of IGF-1 in dairy products, since elevated blood levels of IGF-1 are

among the leading known risk factors for breast cancer, and are also associated

with other major cancers, particularly colon and prostate.10In 1994, Monsanto

sued two dairies and threatened several thousand retailers for labeling or

advertising milk and dairy products as " rBGH-free. " Despite Monsanto's

intimidation tactics, more than 10% of U.S. milk is currently labeled as

" rBGH-free, " while sales of organic milk and dairy products (which

prohibit rBGH) are booming. And just to add insult to injury, in recent months

a Monsanto-funded front group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, has launched a

smear campaign against organic dairies, including Organic Valley, claiming they

are defrauding consumers.11.How Monsanto's policies have become U.S. policyPrior

to being the Supreme Court Judge who put G.W. in office, Clarence Thomas was

Monsanto's lawyer. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the

Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. The Secretary of Defense

(Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle

pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000

in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last

election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and

Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy

Education Board)What can you do?1) Contact your state representatives and let

them know your views.2) Educate yourself about what is really in our food.Three

recommended books:Eric Schlosser, " Fast Food Nation " New York: Harper Collins,

2002.Marion Nestle, Food Politics: " How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition

and Health. " University of California Press, March 2002.Marion Nestle, " Safe

Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism. " University of California

Press, March 2003.3) Eat only organically grown and produced food. Sadly and

unfortunately, we cannot trust the FDA or USDA to ensure the safety of our food.

References:1. Gold, Mark. Independent Analysis of the " Opinion of the European

Commission, Scientific Committee on Food:Update on the Safety of Aspartame /

E951 " (SCF 2002) http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm2.

Samuels, A. 1999. " The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A

Study in Suppression of Information, " Accountability in

Research, Volume 6, Pages 259-310. Available at: [

http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.htm].3. Collins, R., 2000. " Science

Conflicted: Restoring Trust in the National Academy of Sciences, " Integrity in

Science Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Also in the

Baltimore Sun on August 29, 2000, Full text available at: [

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/baltsun_article.html ].4. Edmonds Institute

http://www.edmonds-institute.org/door.html5. Samuels, A. 1999. " The

Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of

Information, " Accountability in Research, Volume 6, Pages 259-310. Available at:

http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.htm6. Collins, R., 2000. " Science

Conflicted: Restoring Trust in the National Academy of Sciences, " Integrity in

Science Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Also in the

Baltimore Sun on August 29, 2000, Full text available at: [

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/baltsun_article.html ].7.

Green, Ché, LiP Magazine, July 9, 2002.

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=135578. Ferrara, Jennifer 'Revolving

Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators " The Ecologist,

Sept,Oct.1998.http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm9. Ibid10. Monsanto's Hormonal

Milk Poses Serious Risks of Breast Cancer, Besides Other Cancers, Warns

Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of

Public Health. Cancer Prevention Coalition, http://www.preventcancer.com/11.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/071303_rbgh.cfm

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search