Is it easier in America to buy a gun than French cheese?

Yes.  But.

The following graphic has been making its way around the Internet this weekend.

I was intrigued, but suspicious. I don't like to send things around, or post them on the blog, if something doesn't smell right (no pun intended, as we are talking about wonderfully stinky French cheese). So I did a little digging, and here's what I found.

The graphic is kinda right.

J'accuse!

It seems that, of all things, an outbreak of Typhoid in Canada in the early 1940s was linked to Cheddar cheese made from raw milk (call her, Typhoid Elsie). Fast forward to 1950, and the FDA decides to do something about the dangers of stinky French cheese, and bans the sale of any imported cheese from raw milk that is not aged for a minimum of 60 days (a ban on domestically-produced cheese was, reportedly, instituted a few years before that).  The thinking was/is that the curing process kills the bacteria (and recent research suggests that even that may not always work).

And so began America's cheese panic.

So, the cheeses in the graphic are not banned per se.  They're only banned if they're made with raw milk that hasn't been aged a minimum of 60 days.  And if they're made with pasteurized milk, they're fine.  Thus, newer French Brie cheese made with pasteurized milk can be sold in the US (even though it's reportedly less tasty than the "real" French version - and part of the lost flavor of some French cheeses comes from the fact that their peak flavor comes at a time "less" than 60 days).  Sadly, there's a section of the site I link that appears to note some exceptions to the rule, but the section isn't written in complete sentences, so it makes no sense.  So I did some more research...

What I found was that there seems to be another restriction, beyond the 60 day rule. This from an article in 2005:

According to John Sheehan of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in the 1980s both countries agreed that all soft cheeses from France would be made from pasteurized milk in plants certified by the French government. This followed the detection of the harmful listeria bacteria in some French Brie.

2005 was around the same time that the FDA cracked down on French cheese entering the US - previously they apparently had overlooked some of the "illegal" cheeses. Now they were cracking down even on some cheese aged over 60 days - possibly for legit reasons, possibly as retaliation for a trade dispute.

And there's talk of banning raw milk cheese all together:

But in recent months, two recalls involving e. coli in raw-milk cheese have brought that law into question: in November, at Bravo Farms, near Fresno, then in December, at Sally Jackson Cheese, in Washington State.

David Acheson, a former associate commissioner for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, says laboratory tests have suggested that e.coli O157, and possibly other microbes, as well, can survive the 60-day aging process.

“There’s real concern that the 60 days isn’t long enough,” he says.

On average, there are about 40 reported cases a year of people getting sick from raw-milk cheese, nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control. During a 15-year period between 1993 and 2008, two people died from those illnesses.

That's a small fraction of the outbreaks that have been traced back to ground beef, for example, and the number has stayed fairly constant. Still, the FDA says raw-milk cheese is a growing concern.

Two people died over fifteen years from eating raw milk cheese.  Significantly more died over that period from guns, about 450,000 people (that includes suicides, but hey, we don't let people intentionally kill themselves by eating French cheese, so why allow guns?).

In the end, I couldn't confirm that any of the cheeses listed in the graphic above are actually "banned" in the US, because there are versions of them - with pasteurized milk or aged over 60 days - that are permitted for several of them (I didn't check them all).  The graphic indicates, for example, that French roquefort (i.e., blue cheese) is not permitted into the US.  That's not true.  You can buy the French "President" brand blue cheese in the US - I  have.  The same goes for the graphic's mention of Camembert.  Obviously, the American versions are either pasteurized or aged over 60-days.

Now, the graphic would be correct if it got a little more specific and, say, added an asterisk noting that the original, "true," raw-milk-aged-under-60-day versions of these French cheeses are banned in the US.  Try this:

And that's our food science lesson for the day.  At least this explains why I have such a hard time finding a good tangy French chèvre at the market in the states. Read the rest of this post...

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Big Pharma) is why you pay 4x too much for prescription drugs

We've already established

what you are, Sen. Carper.

Now we're simply haggling

over the price.

US Senator Thomas Carper from Delaware isn't the only reason you pay an exorbitant price, as compared to Europeans and Canadians, for prescription drugs.  But he's definitely one of the main reasons (it also didn't help that the administration traded this amendment away to Big Pharma.)

You see, Senator Carper is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries who have paid him nearly half a million dollars over the years for his service to their cause.

It's currently illegal for US pharmacies and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from abroad, where the exact same drugs, made by the exact same drug companies, are often sold at a quarter of the price of their US counterparts.

And even private American citizens, when traveling abroad, are only permitted to bring a few month's worth of prescription drugs back home with them, lest American pharmaceutical companies, that pay big money to buy off the US Congress and presidential candidates, lose out on the opportunity to gouge the American people for billions in excess profits each year.

Back in 2009, during the health care reform debate, all that might have changed.

You see, former US Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota offered an amendment that would have permitted "pharmacies and wholesalers to import U.S.-approved medication from Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, where drug costs are far lower because of price controls." And who led the opposition to that amendment, but the Democratic Senator from Delaware, Thomas Carper, who has the big pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca headquartered in his state.

More from the Washington Post:

An anticipated vote on Dorgan's amendment was initially blocked on Thursday by Democratic Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, home to the U.S. headquarters of pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. Carper backs a different version of the legislation that supporters decry as a poison pill.

Carper said in a statement that he shares the FDA's concerns that "Senator Dorgan's amendment could potentially allow unsafe, counterfeited drugs into the United States, contaminating our drug supply. This is a complicated issue that affects people's lives. We should make sure that the FDA says it's safe before we reimport drugs from other countries."

Right, Senator Carper and the FDA are worried about unsafe counterfeit drugs coming into the US, that's why they won't let American citizens buy the same drugs, made and sold by the same pharmaceutical companies, for a quarter of the price in Europe.

Contrary to Senator Carper's assertion, it's actually not that complicated.  You see, Senator Carper has received $166,300 from pharmaceutical lobbyists, and a whopping $320,210 from insurance lobbyists. That's nearly half a million dollars in bribes appreciation from lobbyists who have zero interest in making your health care affordable and every interest in gouging you for every penny you've got.

Carper has received $27,200 alone from AstraZeneca.  You know AstraZeneca, they're the pharmaceutical company that charges Americans nearly four times what it charges Europeans for one of the world's most popular asthma drugs, Symbicort.

As I reported yesterday, it's even worse.  Not only does AstraZeneca discriminate against Americans simply because of our "crime" of being born US citizens, but AstraZeneca has found a new way to gouge American consumers.  Over the past three years, AstraZeneca has raised the price of Symbicort in the US by 20%.  In Europe, over the same three-year period, AstraZeneca raised the price of the already relatively-cheap drug by a whopping 0%:

The price of Symbicort in France three years ago was 54 Euros ($66) - that's the same price Symbicort goes for today in Paris - AstraZeneca hasn't increased the price one cent in three years. But a funny thing happens when you look at the price of Symbicort in the US over that same time period. Three years ago it was $194. Today it goes for $233. That's a 20% increase in the price of the drug since 2009.

So, AstraZeneca is not only charging Americans 3.5x what it charges Europeans for the same drug, but over the past three years AstraZeneca has kept the relatively-low price of the drug in Europe stable - a zero percent increase in the price charged Europeans - while AstraZeneca increased the already-exorbitant US price by 20% while US inflation never topped 3% in any of those three years.

You can thank Senator Carper for that too.

Here's what the federal government and consumers would have saved had Dorgan's amendment passed.  More from the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the proposal would save the government $19 billion over the next 10 years, and Dorgan estimated that consumers would save $80 billion more. He pointed to vast price differences in drugs made in the same factories; an equivalent amount of the heartburn medication Nexium, for example, costs $36 in Spain and $424 in the United States, he said.

But it's not just about saving money.  Senator Carper didn't just ensure that Americans will continue to be ripped off by drug companies, he helped ensure that nearly a quarter of American seniors, and nearly one-third of America's uninsured, won't get the life-saving drugs they need.  From NIH:

Due to the increasing burden of medication costs, Americans, especially elderly and the uninsured, avoid taking medications or skip doses. According to a study, 22% of seniors do not fill their prescriptions because they cannot afford the cost of their medications (Safran et al 2002). The percentages are higher (32%) for uninsured population, which account for approximately 10% to 15% of the US population (Safran et al 2002).

So the next time grandma can't afford her meds, be sure to call up Senator Carper and ask him if his cool half a million was worth it?

To wrap up, let me take you back to what Senator Carper had to say in 2009 about why it should remain illegal for people like me to buy a year's supply of AstraZeneca's Symbicort in France for nearly 1/4th the price I pay for the same Symbicort in the US:

"Senator Dorgan's amendment could potentially allow unsafe, counterfeited drugs into the United States, contaminating our drug supply."

Senator Carper is afraid that the Symbicort AstraZeneca is selling me in France is unsafe and counterfeit?  If that's true, then I wouldn't trust any of AstraZeneca's drugs anywhere, even in the US.

I'm sure Senator Carper would be happy to clear up any confusion... for another half a million bucks. Read the rest of this post...

Nice to see the FDA whoring for Big Pharma

There really is no other way to describe this outright lie on the federal Food and Drug Administration Web site that a reader just found:

Is it legal for me to personally import drugs?

In most circumstances, it is illegal for individuals to import drugs into the United States for personal use. This is because drugs from other countries that are available for purchase by individuals often have not been approved by FDA for use and sale in the United States. For example, if a drug is approved by Health Canada (FDA’s counterpart in Canada) but has not been approved by FDA, it is an unapproved drug in the United States and, therefore, illegal to import. FDA cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs that it has not approved.

FDA, however, has a policy explaining that it typically does not object to personal imports of drugs that FDA has not approved under certain circumstances, including the following situation:

The drug is for use for a serious condition for which effective treatment is not available in the United States;

There is no commercialization or promotion of the drug to U.S. residents;

The drug is considered not to represent an unreasonable risk;

The individual importing the drug verifies in writing that it is for his or her own use, and provides contact information for the doctor providing treatment or shows the product is for the continuation of treatment begun in a foreign country; and

Generally, not more than a 3-month supply of the drug is imported.

Excuse me, but I've been traveling to France for years and they have THE SAME EXACT DRUGS MADE BY THE SAME EXACT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES SELLING FOR 1/3 TO 1/5 THE COST THEY CHARGE AMERICANS FOR THE EXACT SAME THING.  Period.  Advair, sold in both countries by same company, is 1/5 the cost in France.  Singulair, 1/4 the price.  Pulmicort, 1/3.

These aren't crazy knock-off drugs from Timbuktu.  They aren't stolen formulas being reproduced in the developing world.  They're drugs made by the same companies, often sold under the same names, and those same companies agree to sell the same drugs for significantly less in Europe because they know they can make up the difference, and then some, by gouging Americans at home (I have been told this by numerous sources on the inside).

We are subsidizing low drug prices in Europe in order to pad the profits of American drug companies.  You are paying what amounts to a tax on your prescription drug purchases in order to help Europeans buy cheaper drugs. How do you like them apples?

The FDA doesn't tell you any of that.  They don't tell you that one of the main reasons you can't buy cheaper drugs in Europe and Canada and bring them home is because the FDA is in cahoots with Big Pharma in order to line the pockets of Big Pharma at the expense of every day Americans.  Funny how that never made it into their cute little "explanation" as to why they don't want you buying cheaper drugs abroad.

It's is beyond offensive - I'd dare say criminal - that the FDA of a Democratic administration is spouting GOP pro-Pharma propaganda. Read the rest of this post...

FDA rejects "corn sugar" name for high fructose corn syrup

It's a fair ruling since corn syrup is just corn syrup, but how did such a well financed lobby lose? The FDA is not known for being strong in the face of a well funded industry. Whatever happened should be reviewed so it can be repeated elsewhere.

The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday rejected the Corn Refiners Association's bid to rename its sweetening agent "corn sugar."

Given the sweetener's bad reputation in recent years, the association submitted an application to the agency in 2010 to have the product renamed on nutrition labels.

But the FDA said that it defines sugar as a solid, dried and crystallized food — not a syrup.

What's amusing in this case is that the corn syrup lobby has been trying to sell their product as something as good as processed white sugar, as if that is a healthy product. Read the rest of this post...

Is sunscreen bad for your health?

Since summer is almost here, it's worth reading and then coming to your own conclusion. Despite having the kind of skin that burns easily, I've cut back dramatically on using sunscreen in recent years and instead opt for being a lot more cautious and covering up. Even when I go cycling in the summer, I mix between short sleeve jerseys and long sleeve jerseys that offer sun protection. The arguments against sunscreen have been out there for a while and the FDA has been noticeably quiet on the matter.

More on the subject of sunscreen from Natural Society:

Studies conducted indicate the dangers of certain chemical compounds within sunscreen could be causing a variety of skin damaging ailments, especially when reacting with the sun’s intensive heat. Though the FDA had supervised and funded the studies showing key ingredients related to vitamin A as carcinogenic, they knowingly prevented the information from being released to the public whatsoever – up until recently. The synthetic vitamin A compound found in many sunscreen brands contain retinol and retinyl palmitate, both found to react negatively in the sunlight, becoming toxic to the system. This isn’t to be confused with the health-enhancing vitamin A that is found in many foods – it is a purely synthetic and ultimately useless ingredient. When combined with the extensive use over time, this kind of sunscreen can lead to skin damage in its users.

Read the rest of this post...

FDA proposes "voluntary" reductions of antibiotics for animals

Rx photo via
Shutterstock

Because "demanding" such a reasonable request would sound too socialist?

When cows were first given antibiotics decades ago, consumers were told it would never have an impact on humans. We now know that the drugs such as antibiotics and steroids given to animals do impact humans. That's why there's a problem with some antibiotics no longer working on humans, and why an increasing number of young girls have breasts far before their time.

Kindly asking industry to do the right thing is weak, and ignores the real world problems (it also ignores the fact that the administration asked Wall Street to do the right thing and how did that work out for them?). But hey, it's not socialist and the administration wants to avoid that tag at all costs.

The Food and Drug Administration called on drug companies Wednesday to help limit the use of antibiotics in farm animals, a decades-old practice that scientists say has contributed to a surge in dangerous, drug-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotic drugs like penicillin are routinely mixed with animal feed and water to help livestock, pigs and chickens put on weight and stay healthy in crowded barns. Scientists have warned that such use leads to the growth of antibiotic-resistant germs that can be passed on to humans.

The FDA has struggled for decades with how to tackle the problem because the powerful agriculture industry argues the drugs are a key part of modern meat production.

Joe reports on AMERICAblog Gay that rather than require federal contractors not discriminate against gays, the administration is simply going to "urge" them not to discriminate. Good luck with that. Read the rest of this post...

Judge dismisses legal challenge to Plan B, may review FDA decision

And the push-back begins.

You may recall that Obama's FDA, in internal deliberations, recommended removing age restrictions on over-the-counter birth control — so-called "Plan B One-Step" — but Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, to whom the FDA reports, rejected the recommendation of the FDA scientists.

This caused a huge outcry among women's rights groups, both on the merits (the arguments didn't make sense) and because of Obama's campaign promises not to overrule regulatory scientists on political grounds, as Bush II had done.

Plan B approval has been a political football since the Bush years. One of the reasons for the decision in the first place is a 2009 court order. (More Bush II–era background summary here.)

And that's were we are today, with Sebelius rejecting the recommendation of FDA scientists, women's rights advocates up in arms, Obama in re-election mode, and a court order that, in part, caused the reconsideration in the first place.

So it's back to the courts, in this case to federal judge Edward Korman in Brooklyn, with whom the 2009 complaint was filed. In a move that cheered women's rights advocates, Judge Korman did two things (my emphasis):

A federal judge Tuesday rejected a request to hold the Food and Drug Administration in contempt of court over its policy on the emergency contraceptive Plan B but said he would consider reviewing the government’s refusal to make it easier for girls and women to get the drug.

Rejecting the request to hold the FDA in contempt of court is small potatoes compared to the suggestion that he would put Sebelius's (and, one must assume, Obama's) decision under court review:

Korman said he was willing to hear arguments over whether the agency should have allowed the sale of the morning-after pill to girls younger than 17 without a prescription, and he instructed advocacy groups to file the appropriate legal motions. Korman specifically suggested adding Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to the lawsuit.

There's much good information in the article; it's well researched and written.

I'm looking forward to the decision; I hope it comes before Mr. Obama opens the 2012 package he hopes will contain his $1 billion electoral pony.

Which is, of course, the other half of this story, that nagging sense of "betrayal" that Obama expects his base to roll with as they enter the voting booth.

Let's see how they roll.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Obama Admin overrules FDA approval of over-the-counter birth control; pro-choice women feel "betrayed"

A great many pro-choice women consider this latest Obama move a "betrayal" (see below).

From a NARAL New York press release (my emphasis throughout):

Today the FDA announced the Secretary of Health and Human Services – for the first time ever – has invoked her authority to overrule the agency’s decision to approve the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B One-Step for full over-the-counter sale, which would have removed what was widely recognized to be a politically motivated age restriction on its access. This is the first time in history the Health Secretary has ever used this power to overrule an FDA decision. Had the FDA decision gone into effect, women of all ages would have been able to purchase this back-up birth control method without a prescription and without delays at the pharmacy counter.

“This is a deeply disappointing betrayal from an Administration that had pledged to promote the health and well-being of women and families and be guided by science and medicine,” said Andrea Miller, President of NARAL Pro-Choice New York.

Scott Lemieux at Prospect.org:

[I]n a decision that RH Reality Check's Jodi Jacobson calls "astounding," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has overruled her own medical experts and denied American women over-the-counter access to Plan B. This action is, quite simply, a disgrace. It's awful on the merits, and politically involves attacking a core constituency of the Democratic Party for no obvious benefit. Overriding professional FDA scientists in order to advance an agenda hostile to reproductive freedom and the equality of women is not what most Democrats believed they were voting for.

Lemieux adds:

And let's not forget that the cossacks work for the czar; the responsibility for this decision rests with President Obama.

I'd dispute the "no obvious benefit" part. There's quite a lot of speculation that he's sucking up to Catholic bishops.

This isn't over. Many more moves like this and the Republicans can run Krusty the Clown and expect to win.

Update: An emailer pointed this out, Obama in 2009:

Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.

I'm speechless.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Lettuce poison you: Greens recalled in 19 states

Last week it was cantaloupes. Remember when it was safe to eat food? CBS:

The lettuce recall over Listeria fears may be bigger than originally thought, with the California farm that issued the recall saying its notice had gone out to 19 states and Canada.

A question for our foreign based readers, do they have this many food scares in Europe? Answer: Reader Perl_jammer (cute pun, btw) posted this in the comments, a story showing similar problems in Europe. But do they happen as often here? Is it just me, or do these things seem too frequent for comfort? Read the rest of this post...

Deadly cantaloupe kills 16 so far

That is seriously messed up. AP:

Health officials say as many as 16 people have died from possible listeria illnesses traced to Colorado cantaloupes, the deadliest food outbreak in more than a decade.

The CDC said Tuesday that they have confirmed two deaths in Texas and one death each in in Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. Last week the CDC reported two deaths in Colorado, four deaths in New Mexico, one in Oklahoma and one in Maryland.

Read the rest of this post...

Hard addicts drop by half after decriminalization of drugs in Portugal

AFP:

The number of addicts considered "problematic" -- those who repeatedly use "hard" drugs and intravenous users -- had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said....

"This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies."

Read the rest of this post...

Greens worry about danger of sex toys

Actually, this article is serious stuff.  I'd heard of this before.

Germany's Green Party is worried about the health of their countrymen. But this time they aren't concerned about typical environmentalist causes like nuclear radiation or pesticides in food. Instead, their latest fears regard the potential health hazards of sex toys.

"Many... sex toys... contain a high amount of phthalates, other carcinogenic plasticizers and toxic substances," the paper reads. The substances, which enter the body through mucous membranes, can lead to infertility, hormone imbalances, diabetes and obesity, the parliamentarians warn. The chemicals can also cause hormone disturbances in unborn babies, the paper reads. Phthalates and other plastic softening agents are being officially phased out of products in many developed nations.

60 Minutes covered this topic last summer. It goes far beyond sex toys.

More than ever, people are worried about how all the chemicals we're exposed to are affecting our health: among them a family of chemicals known as phthalates, which are used in everyday plastics.

Not plastic bottles of water or soda, but soft and flexible things like shower curtains. They're also in shampoos and carpeting.

Phthalates are so ubiquitous, we all have traces in our bodies.

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, put phthalates on a list of chemicals that "may present a risk" to the environment or human health. That's because they disrupt hormone activity and some preliminary studies show that they may be causing a slow and steady demasculinizing of men.

Read the rest of this post...

House Republicans stop pesky food safety regs

From Anson Kaye at USNews:

Folks, it’s with great pleasure that I report more good news from the House of Representatives. I know, it’s hard to imagine the House getting any better, but a few days ago they did something that can only be described as delicious: They stopped the government from getting all mixed up in food safety.

You see, in December, the president signed into law the first significant food safety reforms in over 70 years. But House Republicans are trying to send those laws back to the kitchen (pun!) by cutting the FDA’s implementation budget. That means that while the laws remain on the books, the FDA won’t have the money to execute them.

And our food safety system has never, ever broken down. Ok, so a long, long time ago some foods did make Americans sick. But that was way back in 2010 and 2009 and 2007... That’s like 525,000 minutes ago, people. Check my math, but I’m pretty sure I wasn’t even born then. And anyway, the tainted foods were pretty exotic. Eggs and spinach. Some kind of mysterious butter made of peanuts.

Read the rest of this post...

High fructose corn syrup might be bad for you? Let’s change the name!

Sleazy, slimy and gross. Reminds me of the time they tried to take cocoa butter out of chocolate. Read the rest of this post...

FDA gets graphic with cigarette warnings

It's pretty safe to assume that everyone in the US now knows that smoking is bad for your health, no? While smoking bothers me personally (headaches and the smell) it's not entirely clear how this campaign is really going to help. Over here when they started to use more graphic labels, it helped launch a new business of selling cigarette cases that you could slip the pack into so you didn't have to see the new label. (Hint, hint, for those with design skills and who want to create a new business when this law kicks in.) Reuters:

Dead bodies, diseased lungs and a man on a ventilator were among the graphic images for revamped tobacco labels unveiled Tuesday by U.S. health officials.

Proposed in November under a law that put the multibillion-dollar tobacco industry under the control of the Food and Drug Administration, the new labels must be on cigarette packages and in advertisements starting in October 2012.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg were to announce the nine new warnings at the White House, but the labels were released early Tuesday on the FDA website.

Read the rest of this post...

US Chamber of Commerce fighting regulation of genital-deforming chemicals in every day plastic

In addition to being bigots, they really are pigs. From ThinkProgress:

As ThinkProgress reported yesterday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — one of the largest and most influential big business lobbying groups in the world — fired a letter off to Cass Sunstein, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, telling him to block the regulation of extremely toxic chemicals in consumer plastics. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the dangers of such chemicals, the chamber letter declares that that EPA “lacks the sound regulatory science needed to meet the statutory threshold for a restriction or ban of the targeted chemicals.”

A wide body of scientific research has linked these chemicals, including phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA), to declining birth rates, stillbirths, and an increasing number of birth defects. Many of the chemicals under review for increased regulation have already been banned in Europe and Canada.

In fact, studies have shown that these plastic chemicals are directly linked to an alarming rate of male genital birth defects such as hypospadias, a condition in which the opening of the urethra is on the underside, rather than at the end, of the penis. A report by the Center for American Progress’ Reese Rushing details many other risks associated with the chemicals slated for regulation.

The Chamber letter to Sunstein is signed by chief lobbyist Bill Kovacs. Why is Kovacs fighting so aggressively to continue to allow birth defect and miscarriage-causing chemicals to be used in household items and food containers? Perhaps it is because the Chamber is heavily funded by some of the largest plastics manufacturers in America. According to investigations by the New York Times and ThinkProgress, Dow Chemical and Proctor & Gamble have contributed millions to the Chamber’s war chest in recent years.

Read the rest of this post...

Genetically modified cows produce human milk

And the Brits can make ice cream out of it.

Seriously though, is this a matter of legitimate concern or should we be welcoming the fact that kids may be able to some day move from baby formula to a healthier alternative to mom's milk? I admit the whole Frankenfood thing disturbs me, but I can't tell if I'm being a Luddite or whether my concerns are legit.

From the Telegraph (I also worry about linking to the British press. I worry that some of their publications aren't exactly up to our journalistic standards, but I can't always tell which is and which isn't):

The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.

Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.

The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

Read the rest of this post...

$10 pregnancy drug now $1500 a shot after FDA grants exclusive license

Best medical care in the world.

Many doctors are particularly frustrated with the price hike because to date, KV Pharmaceuticals has not had to bear the cost of the clinical trials used to get the drug approved, but they have announced plans to conduct further trials in the future.

"All the upfront development of the drug was done by the National Institute of Health. You and I paid for that with our tax dollars, it's not like this pharmaceutical company is trying to recoup its investments in research and development, as is usually the reason for the price of new drugs," says Dr. Kevin Ault, associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine.

"And at $1,500 a shot ... to put it in perspective: If I were your obstetrician, and you had a normal delivery, including about eight office visits, I would be paid $2,500 in total for that. It's hard for me to believe that we're going to tack on 10 times that amount just for one treatment," he says.

Read the rest of this post...

Schumer to investigate lead in reusable grocery bags

Yes, the issue needs to be investigated, but wouldn't it be nice if we saw so much enthusiasm for real reform on Wall Street, which is in Schumer's back yard? Of course, this brings us again back to the annoying little problem that ensures the status quo.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York is seeking a federal investigation after a newspaper's report of lead content in some reusable grocery bags.

The Democrat told The Associated Press that many of the reusable grocery bags sold nationwide are manufactured in China. Schumer plans to announce Sunday that he is contacting the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

There is less concern that the lead would easily rub off on food when the bags are new, but there is a concern that as bags wear down lead could accumulate in landfills, creating a potential environmental hazard.

Read the rest of this post...

FDA won't require Frankenfood labels

So in other words, unless you buy certified organic, you could be eating anything. Big mistake by the FDA.

Despite a growing public demand for more information about how food is produced, that won't happen with the salmon because of idiosyncracies embedded in federal regulations.

The FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically modified food once it determines that the altered fish is not "materially" different from other salmon - something agency scientists have said is true.

Perhaps more surprising, conventional food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

Read the rest of this post...