Eating grocery-store food is not currently viewed with suspicion, whereas a hand-prepared, foraged meal raises eyebrows. How do chemicals, shiny steel factories, and tin cans make us feel more secure in the buccal insertion of chemical-laden foodstuffs? How did we get to the point where, unless, it comes from a can, box, or bag, food is suspect?
Now, I don’t advocate blaming everything on the government. But this phenomenon does stem, at least partially, from governmental interference. Yet, though I paint a Dante-worthy horror story with acts such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, horror stories are what sparked the public outcry for such a legislative lien.
The story of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act traces its lineage …show more content…
While Orwellians cry “1984!,” others realized the necessity of such legislation: Big companies are trying to make money, not happiness or satisfaction. That they usually occur simultaneously in the food, drug, and device industries is a plus for consumers, but does not remain the aim of big business. So, the (new, intrusive) law and the people coexisted, at times roughly, until a 1937 disaster: Elixir Sulfanilamide. Flavored with raspberries and innocuous in its ‘treats streptococcus infections’ label, it was discovered and distributed previously in tablet and powdered form, with no adverse effects. When demand for the drug grew, a niche market for a liquid form opened. S.E. Massengill Co. obligingly produced a liquid form, not bothering to test their concoction for toxicity. Why should they? It was supposed to be the same drug, just in a new form. 633 shipments went out. Over 100 death reports came in, crossing FDA desks, although they had very little authority (actually none) in the capacity which they sprang to act, commencing a very involved drug witch-hunt. While their 239-crew task force was a seriously low number with which to accomplish such a task, accomplish it they did. And, a year later, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act passed, after many years with …show more content…
Massengill and Co.’s chemist used to dissolve the powdered form is also contained in jugs of Peak, SuperTech, and Prestone, found in the automotive isle, on antifreeze ingredient lists. Diethylene glycol is a deadly poison, but rigorous tests were not required at that time for new drugs or even foods prior to their hitting the market. Elixir Sulfanilamide not only hit the market, it rampaged through it with enough force to thieve breath from physicians who now had to live with being the reason behind deaths. Realizing that physicians required safe, tested tools through which to accomplish goals of their profession was a major factor in the new law (Ballentine 1981). Challenges of laws with food, drugs, and devices as a regulatory agent number among the stars, and this area needed legislation to cover drugs, devices, and their respective testing processes, as well as labelling processes in food products. Those are huge areas of concern, and similarly, the text of the law fills 304 pages with nine chapters’ worth of attempts to cover the many, ever-changing areas of
Now, I don’t advocate blaming everything on the government. But this phenomenon does stem, at least partially, from governmental interference. Yet, though I paint a Dante-worthy horror story with acts such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, horror stories are what sparked the public outcry for such a legislative lien.
The story of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act traces its lineage …show more content…
While Orwellians cry “1984!,” others realized the necessity of such legislation: Big companies are trying to make money, not happiness or satisfaction. That they usually occur simultaneously in the food, drug, and device industries is a plus for consumers, but does not remain the aim of big business. So, the (new, intrusive) law and the people coexisted, at times roughly, until a 1937 disaster: Elixir Sulfanilamide. Flavored with raspberries and innocuous in its ‘treats streptococcus infections’ label, it was discovered and distributed previously in tablet and powdered form, with no adverse effects. When demand for the drug grew, a niche market for a liquid form opened. S.E. Massengill Co. obligingly produced a liquid form, not bothering to test their concoction for toxicity. Why should they? It was supposed to be the same drug, just in a new form. 633 shipments went out. Over 100 death reports came in, crossing FDA desks, although they had very little authority (actually none) in the capacity which they sprang to act, commencing a very involved drug witch-hunt. While their 239-crew task force was a seriously low number with which to accomplish such a task, accomplish it they did. And, a year later, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act passed, after many years with …show more content…
Massengill and Co.’s chemist used to dissolve the powdered form is also contained in jugs of Peak, SuperTech, and Prestone, found in the automotive isle, on antifreeze ingredient lists. Diethylene glycol is a deadly poison, but rigorous tests were not required at that time for new drugs or even foods prior to their hitting the market. Elixir Sulfanilamide not only hit the market, it rampaged through it with enough force to thieve breath from physicians who now had to live with being the reason behind deaths. Realizing that physicians required safe, tested tools through which to accomplish goals of their profession was a major factor in the new law (Ballentine 1981). Challenges of laws with food, drugs, and devices as a regulatory agent number among the stars, and this area needed legislation to cover drugs, devices, and their respective testing processes, as well as labelling processes in food products. Those are huge areas of concern, and similarly, the text of the law fills 304 pages with nine chapters’ worth of attempts to cover the many, ever-changing areas of