Talk:Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration

message: The content on this page was moved from Food and Drug Administration in April, 2007, after extensive discussions by editors of that page. Please refer to Talk:Food and Drug Administration for the substance of the discussions which led to creation of this page. - Rustavo 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous discussion of this material

message: Per our previous discussions on Talk:Food and Drug Administration, I am restoring the NPOV tag to this content, which I believe places undue weight on outdated and poorly referenced criticisms of questionable relevance to the modern FDA and ongoing efforts by policymakers and others to reform it. I am concerned that this page may be used as a soapbox. Please do not remove the tag again without reaching consensus with the contributors to these two pages. - Rustavo 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the NPOV tag should remain on the article permanently regardless of any changes that are made, as well as be placed on all other Wikipedia articles, and placed on every other article written by man. Regulations 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: OK, I figured if we're going to debate the merits of the criticism page, we should at least revert it to a state before most of us gave up on trying to keep up with Regulations' damage. I took a quick look through the history on the Food and Drug Administration page (this material's former home), and decided that this version was a pretty good one, just before the section really jumped the shark. I give sincere apologies to well-meaining editors who worked on this page after that date - please feel free to undo the change if you feel it was inappropriate. -Rustavo 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Rustavo; we have something to work with.  I have to agree with the thread above that noted some old sources.  However, it fails even to include a spate of law review articles from the early 1990's that criticized the FDA approval process of yore. (COI alert: I edited such an article when I was a law student.) I'm going to take a crack at it, *without* including such additional old sources.  Bearian 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree it would be nice to focus on currently relevant criticisms of the FDA, rather than criticisms of the way things worked in 1975 or so. MastCell Talk 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major revert

message: Does the first sentence confuse others? First, I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. It could mean that FDA only regulates 25-cent products. It could mean that 25% of every purchase/product goes to fund FDA. If the latter is what this sentence is supposed to convey, the number seems inaccurate. I believe I've read that FDA functions each year on $3 per U.S. taxpayer, though this figure may only apply to CDER. Still, 25% on every product cannot be accurate. Perhaps if a quarter (coin) on every product sold in the U.S., even those not part of FDA oversight, were charged, then these quarters would add up to the FDA's budget? 
Sentence needs to be rewritten to make its meaning clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afterlaws (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that line and I'm sorry if you found it confusing. To put it another way, 25% of total consumer expenditures in the US are spent to purchase products regulated by the FDA. The purpose of the statement is to convey the importance & scope of the FDA's regulatory authority from a consumer perspective. For style reasons, I phrased the sentence so the the subject (the FDA) comes first. Please feel free to rephrase it if you find it unclear. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence 

message: Should we nominate for deletion (with regards to the unencyclopedic tag that has been appended)?
: Delete per WP:SOAP. // 3R1C 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Corollary: Comb topic and find said pertinent and current criticisms, cite them properly, and include into the main article, then call for delete. // 3R1C 03:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Delete/merge: My feelings are no secret. I think we should take what is salvageable here and merge it back into the main FDA article, trimming the excess baggage. MastCell Talk 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep: My feelings are unchanged. Eventually the nuts will come back and mess up the FDA page when we have stopped paying attention.  This way they are at least confined to a separate article. Remember 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment if the article is written properly, and the critical commentary is incorporated into the article in such a fashion that it does not attract undue attention of casual preachers, it won't be so much a problem as having a page that says "ANNOUNCE YOUR DISCONENT WITH SAID ORGANIZATION HERE!"  That's all this page is, a big giant target.  Sure, that target might distract vandals from the main article, but tis possible to write the article in such a fashion that it'd be hard for a preacher to find a stable place to express their concerns.  having a page that just asks for people to add more and more unsourced, outdated criticism is just a bad idea. // 3R1C 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Delete/merge. I can't think of any precedent for organising material so that one article acts as lightning rod for another (plus I still think the separate Criticism article is a POV fork). Tearlach 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep:  The broad purview of the FDA, and the abundance of serious criticism across the board, makes the topic quite encyclopedic.  Ombudsman 03:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment: The discussion is more directly related to the POV status of the article.  I don't think anyone here is saying that the main FDA article should be without crits (for the well-stated reasons you asserted), but I think most of us can agree that the reason this article existed was so that Regulations had a soapbox to preach his anti-regulatory, Laissez-faire attitude towards drug control and distribution.  I don't think anyone plans on removing pertinent information, insofar it is a current, documented criticism from reliable medical sources (as opposed to economists and financiers). // 3R1C 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Delete/merge I think as long as the sections of the main article dealing with "current events" and historically significant criticisms are well-defined and well referenced, it will not be hard to get a consensus to remove off-the-wall, poorly referenced additions. Conversely, ghettoising criticisms to a separate page is discouraging for those who might want to make a serious contribution. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep: Seconding Ombudsman (24/04/07), while "Criticism" could use clean-up, there are supportable (even not a few bona fide) and varied criticism contained on said article, too many for FDA article. Even reducing redundancy in Criticism article (my clean-up proposal) would leave much material. Afterlaws 22:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - as this is a unique, important topic in its own right, separate from what the FDA is or was.  This can really use a clean-up, especially needing paper citations for older problems from the 1980's to 1990's.  I just don't have time right now to do the research. I'll go along with any consensus to merge, however. Bearian 00:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: OK, I had the admin who deleted this page restore it so we could finish deciding what to do with the content. So far the vote is Delete/Merge - 4 vs. Keep - 2. Let's give it five days and call the vote closed - if the final vote is delete, we should wait a week for people to merge appropriate content into the main page before deleting this one. Obviously with the recent sockpuppet incidents, there is some concern about the vote being thrown, but I'm not sure how else to handle this. Agreed? -RustavoTalk/Contribs 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about taking it to a formal WP:AFD? There, the problem of sockpuppets, first-time editors, and others who've come along in response to solicitation is well-appreciated. Tearlach 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am perfectly happy with the deletion of the article.  I don't vote for it, but it seems that this is what people want.  Nevertheless, I am afraid we will wind up back here (with a fork of criticism of FDA) in about a year's time. So there is no need to go to AFD in my view. Remember 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if there's anyone who feels strongly it should not be deleted, then AfD is the way to go. However, if we are all OK with getting rid of it, then since it's already been prodded we could ask the deleting admin to re-delete it without an AfD. For the record, I'm still in favor of deletion and merging the relevant content back into the parent FDA article. MastCell Talk 03:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern about the previous deletion was that all the content on this page, including this discussion, disappeared into the ether. It should at least be archived on the main page since, as was noted, this issue is bound to come up again. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's wrap up the above vote

message: Is there a talk page about merging or deleting this page again?  I thought the consensus was to Keep. Bearian 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a split page from FDA with little revision, because that one was too long. This kind of split, IMO, is legit and should not be deleted. WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the vote was four to four last night, which was the deadline I had suggested for bringing the vote to a close. Ties generally go to the keep voters. However, for some reason, someone deleted the page anyway (again). This is really starting to annoy me, and I actually voted for delete/merge. I guess the moral of the story is that one should stick to the formal AfD process or random admins will do whatever they feel like. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate deletion

message: Some of these are just controversies involving FDA, but criticism is never far behind.  In no particular order:
*Dietary Supplements, esp. Ephedra (too little regulation vs. unnecessary meddling)
*GMO and cloned foods (too little regulation vs. unnecessary meddling)
*Human cloning (US ban on human cloning is enforced by FDA)
*Vaccination (just link to the main controversy article, no need to rehash)
*Aspartame (again, just link to the main article)
*Gene therapy
*Placebo controls in cancer trials
*Access to experimental drugs (take it out of main article)
*Rights of research subjects (no-consent clinical trials of blood substitutes)
*Regulation of cosmetics (too little regulation vs. unnecessary meddling)
*Direct to consumer advertising of drugs
*Regulation of tobacco products (was shot down by supreme court, may come back)
*"One Food Agency" proposal (Food regulations in the US are spread out over 20+ agencies)
*Breast implants
*Methylmercury in fish (EPA has much stricter standards)
*Bottled water (again, EPA has much stricter standards)
*Whistleblowers alleging groupthink and worse (Dr. Graham)
*Disproportionate against small business (Utah Medical as opposed to Guidant)
*Antidepressants (Zoloft vs. Placebo vs. St. John's Wort study)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedumbyankee (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: + cheese/raw milk debate (United States raw milk debate) Arronax50 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other topics to cover

message: This article in the American Chronicle contains some documentation of outrageous abuse of power by the FDA and criminal misconduct by several of its officers through the bureau's attempts, starting in 1987, to shut down the Life Extension Foundation. If sufficient reliable sources exist to corroborate this, this should justify a separate section. __meco (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find more reliable sources documenting the FDA's armed and jackbooted thugs kicking down the doors of private residences and prying vitamin bottles out of the hands of the elderly, cackling with evil glee all the while, then yes, we can incorporate it. MastCell Talk 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang, I must work in the wrong part of FDA.  I'm missing out on all the fun!  Seriously, though, can we limit this page to rational criticism?  Read the article and tell me that this is a calm and collected individual.  The FDA's regulation of alternative medicine products is a very real point of contention with a lot of reasonable arguments on both sides, but this is not what most people would consider a credible source.  Just for the record, FDA does not kick down doors.  We have the US Marshals do it.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terror tactics in 1987 

message: We all eat genetically modified organisms (GMO). Is it correct that the FDA doesn't require any from GMOs or genetically modified food? 217.232.104.226 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any what? Remember (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember right, the FDA's current policy on "GMO" human foods is that they require preapproval if the nature of the change presents a concern and that the method of modification is not important.  The approval process is the same as the one for food additives.  http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?recflag=&accno=A03410&rptno=GAO-02-566 is the GAO's investigation of FDA's process.  USDA's AMS covers marketing of agricultural products and would probably cover any regulations on labeling requirements if consumer choice is the primary issue whereas FDA covers health-related labeling.Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GMO or Genetically modified organism 

message: Just wanted to move this page to a more neutral title.  I'm horribly biased, I know, but the current title invites soaping.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly a question of if the article should stay at a title that fails WP:NPOV by default.  For the most part I WP:DGAF, just thought it was worth floating.  Recasting it (and working on it) as a controversy list might make it a salvageable article, but I have a lot of other pet projects to work on (especially ones where I don't have an obvious CoI).Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why the title fails NPOV by default.  There are many articles titled "Criticism of..." (see here for a list) and many more articles have sections on criticism.  There is nothing in NPOV that precludes Wikipedia covering criticism of a topic as long it is verifiable and not original research.   Recasting these criticisms as "controversy" is fine but the work should be done first and then the title can be changed to reflect that.  As it stands now, the title is exactly what is contained in the article and should stay. —  AjaxSmack  03:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tossed the request.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move suggestion 

message: I've read news articles & heard criticisms of the FDA banning safe things (mostly artificial sweeteners) because they have board members from opposing companies that sell similar products. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Political_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stevia#Nutrasweet_hiring_FDA_board_members  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA bans safe drugs? 

message: "Strong Medicine: What's Ailing the FDA? Is America's consumer watchdog understaffed, overburdened, ethically challenged or merely misunderstood?" Readers Digest  MaxPont (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More  MaxPont (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more MaxPont (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical overview from Reliable Source

message: NY times "F.D.A. Reveals It Fell to a Push by Lawmakers" MaxPont (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Politicians pressured the FDA (corruption)

message: Updated and sourced information which I believe improves this section. The position of the FDA (as outlined in the last few sentences) is presented in an uncritical manner when in fact the motivation for their policy has been strongly questioned. For comparative purposes, the changes adopted by other countries in this area should also be noted. Why were these edits deleted? All sourced and based on fact. I have now undone this deletion. PinkPolitico80 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. Standard unbalanced POV-pushing synthesis, going beyond reporting of the criticism and moving into substantive analysis; using "claim" phrasing to suggest agency not acting in good faith without legitimate sourcing; redundant to NPOV-compliant spinout article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay Donor Ban

message: I edited this section to address several problems:
1) The first 2 paragraphs refer to complaints of undue pharmaceutical industry influence on the FDA cited by a former commissioner in 1969.  I haven’t changed this yet, but I wonder if criticisms going back to the Vietnam War era are really topical to the article. Aren't there more recent quotes avaialable?
2)The fourth paragraph attibutes a statement to Consumer Union that is not supported by the cited reference, which is in any case does not meet Wikipedia WP:RS standards (“Drug Recalls” is a newsletter published by tort lawyers who use it to seek business conducting litigation against pharmaceutical companies.). I’ve deleted this statement less because the source was poor than because the cited article did not support the statement attributed to it. 
3)The fifth paragraph points out a legitimate problem of doctors with financial relationships sitting on committees that write treatment guidelines.  However, these committees are formed by private medical societies and are not directly related to the FDA in any way.  Since the article is about criticism of the FDA, I deleted the statement.
4)Paragraph 6, alleging that a competitor’s antidepressant was held up by FDA to support a competitor, and Paragraph 7, making similar allegations about approval of a sunscreen being held up, appear to be pure WP:OR. None of the cited references contain or support the allegations made in the text of the article, so these two paragraphs were deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Undue Pharmaceutical Industry Influence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525082655/http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/speeding.html to http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/speeding.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629190236/http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/1992policy.html to http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/1992policy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I know that this article is focused exclusively on criticisms of the FDA, but for God's sake, it's biased as fuck! 
The guy or guys who wrote it didn't even have time to check their spelling I just corrected "Clandestien" to "Clandestine" in the 'Charges of FDA bias' section (how ironic); let me quote a few parragraphs of said section: 
"A clear and indisputable historical example of how the FDA seemingly favors pharmaceutical industry either from clandestine direct money payments to FDA directors and scientific advisors or other undisclosed or unknown means was seen with the generic drug droperidol. Droperidol was a widely used antiemetic used perioperatively safely for over 30 years. During this time, and still currently, there has never been a single case reported in peer-reviewed medical literature of cardiac arrhythmias or cardiac issues when given at doses typically used for post-operative nausea and vomiting. Nonetheless, and without warning, the FDA issued a black box warning regarding QTc prolongation (a dangerous finding on ECG which can lead to cardiac arrest) with the use of droperidol. This effectively killed the common use of droperidol and made way for heavy usage of the much more expensive non-generic 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonists on the market. Interestingly, these newer drugs had also been shown to prolong QTc as much, if not more than droperidol. In addition, each of the 5-HT3 antagonists available at that time had peer-reviewed reports of causing significant cardiac abnormalities, and in some cases, death. Despite this obvious discrepancy that outraged the anesthesia community, the FDA persisted in keeping the black box warning, while at the same time did not place any restrictions on the equally (if not more) dangerous but much more expensive 5-HT3 antagonists." 
Please either fix this or delete the article, if this can't be considered bias then I don't know what the fuck could be.
--177.230.93.9 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The language of Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration#Charges of FDA bias does appear preachy and one-sided, though I don't know anything about the objective importance of the concerns being raised. Maybe some of the material was lifted directly from a critical article without enough distancing to indicate that Wikipedia is neutral in these debates. The phrase 'sky-high user fees' sounds like an expression of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My knee jerk opinion was in agreement however after a little research I am finding some very troubling facts.  Here's one study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17519460  and this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12658255  more later...  Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIASED 

message: https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-160444
--Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funded by companies it regulates