by D. Cupples | We pay the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) billions each year. In exchange, the FDA is supposed to protect us consumer-taxpayers from unsafe food, drugs, cosmetics, etc.
Despite that clearly articulated duty, the FDA's performance has been spotty for years--some would say due to over-friendliness with drug companies.
Maybe I'm putting it too nicely. I'll try again. For some years, the FDA seems to have promoted drug companies' interests over our interests.
Still too watered down? Okay. Last try: evidence suggests that some of FDA's decision-makers have been downright corrupt.
This month's Time Magazine has an article entitled, After Avandia: Does the FDA Have a Drug Problem?
In May 2007, we at Buck Naked Politics did a blog post entitled The FDA's Latest Pharma-Friendly Sins. It addressed the FDA's highly questionable actions regarding the drugs Avandia, Vioxx, Ketek, and Viagra.
The FDA approved Ketek for public sale despite allegedly knowing that clinical-study results were fraudulent. Despite studies linking Vioxx to heart attacks, the FDA waited two years before requiring a stronger warning label.
Then there's the wildly popular Viagra, which was linked to a strange form of blindness: the FDA waited a whole year to require a stronger warning label.
Then there was our blog post in November 2008, which cited a Washington Post article stating that the FDA had learned about traces of melamine and cyanuric acid ( toxic chemicals) in baby food, yet the FDA inexplicably delayed informing the baby-feeding public about it.
I'm glad that after three-plus years, major media is again spotlighting the FDA's questionable reliability. The health and safety of us consumer-taxpayers is, after all, in the FDA's hands.