How Effective is the FDA?
Tell Me! Lol.
- onlymatch4uLv 710 years agoFavorite Answer
The FDA is an organization that is controlled by BIG BUSINESS and does the bidding of government officials that get money from big business to allow them to stay in power. The food CZAR, for example, is Michael Taylor an ex-monsanto attorney and VICE PRESIDENT of monsanto. Monsanto is responsible for most of the genetic engineering. Michael Taylor declared GMO's as SAFE and so NO TESTING and NO LABELING are required in the United States. Everywhere else in the world it is being rejected and that is because they are testing it and labeling it.
Here is a video of a drug company you may all know, GlaxoSmithKline that was just fined $750 million dollars for what you will see in this film. The FDA was sorely inadquate and allowed much of this problem to exist due to it's ineptness.
While this was going on, 3 FDA agents scoured a major vitamin manufacturer finding absolutely no wrong doing or problems, but when it came to the drug company problems you saw in that video, the FDA did nothing until it was forced to from being exposed.
The answer: NOT VERY EFFECTIVE in keeping products off the market that should never have been put there in the first place and NOT VERY EFFECTIVE in protecting people from harm. The FDA is good at harassment and spending our tax dollars very foolishly.
good luck to youSource(s): Certified Nutritional Therapist B.A. biology & chemistry QRA Practitioner, Author Advanced nutritional research
- MathieuLv 710 years ago
Like anything the FDA is imperfect, they screw up, they can rush over things too quickly, they can be positively apathetic when a problem starts to come up, and yes there have almost certainly been instances of corruption.
But if you put that into perspective you can say the same of nearly everything and, more importantly, they do a good job the VAST majority of the time.
It is only a tiny number of drugs that have been taken off the market. Most drugs are very safe (although ALL have risks and serious complications are always a risk). Then there is an issue commonly blamed on the FDA yet the cause is improper prescribing. There are a number of drugs that should be available, are very useful, are generally safe, but become prescribed improperly. The more recently developed atypical antipsychotics are a good example, they are perfectly fine and proper to use for things like mania and schizophrenia but they are very commonly prescribed for conditions they are NOT FDA approved for like anxiety, insomnia, dementia, agitation, drug withdrawal, and depression.
Actually most of the problems we see are from the improper use of medications especially when they are prescribed for conditions the drugs are not FDA approved for. If medications were only used for their FDA indications and other conditions that have been shown to be safely and effectively treated by the drug there would be a lot fewer problems.
Even a drug like Vioxx (rofecoxib) is not a "bad" drug, it could be used safely but doctors were not told about some of the risks the drug can cause, if they were the drug would not have been prescribed to patients with a higher risk of having complications.
Plus the FDA is underfunded, undermanned, overwhelmed, and sadly they have had to get closer to the pharmaceutical industry because, to a large extent, it helped the FDA with many of their problems (and it also caused some other problems).
If they were given more authority and money to be truly independent and able to be more comprehensive then the FDA would be great.Source(s): M.D., C.M. psychiatry, internal medicine (Québec) Hons. BSc pharmacology
- SammyLv 610 years ago
Youve been quoted some references. And I'm sure you will get a lot more.
But getting back to basics, the FDA is just another part of the government's administrative bureaocracy. As such, it is a largely uneconomical, ineffective, and inefficient mamoth. In amongst that, they do do a few things right. But it is the enormous damage they do with their organised and disorganised #### ups, that are put own to collateral damage/acceptable casualties, that has the blood boiling of an ever increasingly group of affected individuals.
The way things work in all governments, regulatory bodies, administrative groups, etc is that there is influence from the moneyed sector of society (most notably big corporates that stand to benefit). At the top, they are simply revolving doors from the controlling bodies to the controlled (sic) bodies.
It is a fact. In the finace industry, this has now all been researched and revealed. It is nepotism on steroids. It is not a conspiracy theory, but simply a conspiracy. And all that means is that there have been deals made between a few people to circumvent the normal legal or regulatory processes or requirements. And usually, there is a lot of money to be made as a result.Source(s): I've worked for a regulatory body, with various government departments, and for and with a range of big corporates. My partner managed a private bank, and managed funds for some of the "swimming in it" wealthy.
- 10 years ago
moderately effective if even that. There have been situations where they let themselves be payed off to legalize something that way bad for you and make it looks good (like splenda).
No one should have complete trust in the FDA they are very corrupted.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 10 years ago
I hope they do their best.
Try once to think no corrupt thoughts for yourself.
Not so easy.