From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: [sci.med] Vitamins and the FDA : View Point
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:27:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.050425.9342@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
}[Forwarded]
}From: starkid@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Lance Sanders)
}Newsgroups: sci.med,misc.fitness,misc.consumers
}Subject: Vitamins and the FDA (Pt. 1 of 3): Viewpoint
}
}   Pending legislation proposed by the Food and Drug Administration (HR 
}3642/S 2135), which would ban vitamins containing nutrient levels greater 
}than the "recommended daily allowance", eliminate trace nutrients, and make 
}amino acids prescription-only, etc., is extraordinarily ill-considered and 
}dangerous. 

I also oppose the FDA's new Gestapo-like conduct, but have reservations about
some of the grounds for objection given here.

}   The anti-supplementation action by the FDA is not only being undertaken 
}at a time of unprecedented biochemical degredation of our food and water 
}supplies, but also in conjunction with plans to allow UNLABELED, 
}genetically-altered foods into the marketplace (consumers would essentially 
}be forced to buy the altered products; truly, "The Mother Of All Red 
}Flags"), approval of irradiation for poultry, pork, vegetables and fruits, 
}a lifting of the ban on foreign imports of ground meats, etc., and current 
}indictments of FDA safety inspectors that trace routine bribery and illegal 
}importation of foods back (so far) to 1984. 
}   [SEE: Vitamins and the FDA (Pt. 3 of 3): Food Degredation]

The implication here is that the FDA should leave benevolent vitamins and
nutrients alone and go catch those evil monsters - irradiated foods and
genetically altered-foods.

My objection is that I understand that these aren't really so bad.  I think
that BGH and the tomatos that Rifkin opposes are generally good things, and
that Rifkin doesn't have a scientific or moral leg to stand on.  You see,
I'm a skeptic of apocalyptic claims and a libertarian.  The political problem
with this is that it's an appeal to fear and prejudice, and it excludes those
like me who don't think that the problem is simply that Big Brother is going
after the wrong thing.  Many think that we shouldn't have a Big Brother, that
consenting adults should be permitted to purchase what they want and can
afford to pay for.

I haven't heard much about food irradiation, except that it's usually
pronounced by its opponents with the obscene connotations they also attached
to "nuclear radiation", a subject about which I do know they've been
mistaken about.  However, I have it on reliable sources that food irradiation
is not a problem.  I do know that the supposed "degradation" going on is
largely exagerrated due to the apocalyptic methodlogy of ignoring "natural"
risks and presuming man-made ones to be guilty until proven innocent.  For
example, according to UC Berkeley's Dr. Bruce Ames, a glass of orange juice
is more carcinogenic than the EPA's maximum allowable dose of dioxin.  The
recent "Big Green" initiative's language on toxics to be banned would have
classified blood as an illegal toxic.  Furthermore, BGH was chemically
identical to non-man-made bovine growth hormome, and I have yet to hear
any substantive claim made about any health risks from the tomatoes.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6475 alt.activism:16827