The Toothless Bulldog

Charles Sundquist

ENGL101

Darlene Gold

Spring 2011
 Can you imagine a world in which the chief of police was the biggest criminal of all, or a fire

chief the most prolific arsonist? Positions which are made to uphold standards and safety among our

population reduced to nothing more than the overall good of a toothless bulldog. Lots of bark, with no

bite to match. Now imagine this concept carried over into our countries very own regulating bodies.

The horror of idea which is akin to a fox left loose in a chicken house is no longer just an idea, but a

hard, cold reality. A perfect storm of political collaboration with corporate campaign contributions has

resulted in a host of ex-industry leaders appointed to regulatory positions. The list of United States

Government regulatory agencies is incredibly expansive, so for the sake of time, length and attention

span we shall temporarily limit our interest to the many facets of the Food and Drug Administration, or

the FDA.

The Food And Drug Administration was created in 1906 after Theodore Roosevelt signed the

Food and Drug Act into law. It was then called The Bureau of Chemistry, and was created with the

purpose of enforcing regulation on food and drugs including the interstate transport of food which had

been "adulterated", with that term referring to the addition of fillers of reduced "quality or strength",

coloring to conceal "damage or inferiority," formulation with additives "injurious to health," or the use

of "filthy, decomposed, or putrid" substances. The act also applied to the interstate marketing of

"adulterated" drugs, in which the "standard of strength, quality, or purity" of the active ingredient was

not either stated clearly on the label. The act also banned "misbranding" of food and drugs. It had very

little power until 1930 when its powers were reformed and the agency was given the name of The Food

and Drug Administration.

Lets take, for example, the case of Bisphenol A, otherwise known as BPA. BPA is an organic

compound used in the production of certain plastic and epoxy resins along with other applications.

BPA has been known to be estrogenic since the mid 1930s, and yet as recently as 2009 the FDA had

claimed it is of little threat to anyone other than infants and toddlers. Some European countries have

restricted its use and Canada has put an outright ban on plastics that contain BPA. Although the U.S.
FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies

funded by the U.S. NIH (National Institute of Health) and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP

(Good Laboratory Practices) studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious

conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that

GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP

studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the

reliability and validity of scientific findings. (Myers, 2009)

This approach to regulation is shoddy at best due to the fact that it omits hundreds of

independent studies in favor of two industry-funded studies. This lack of oversight allows the

industry to effectively (or ineffectively) regulate itself, and if history has proven time and time again,

industry alone cannot be trusted to self regulate. David L. Pelletier of Cornell University wrote “...the

FDA responded to political pressure for a permissive regulatory approach by exploiting gaps in

scientific knowledge, creatively interpreting existing food law and limiting public involvement in the

policy’s development. Common statements by the government and other proponents concerning sound

science, rigorous testing, no evidence of harm and “as safe as conventional foods” are found to be

misleading unless the scientific, legal and political basis for the US policy is taken into account.

“(Pelletier, 2006)

Lets face it, the United States food safety system is antiquated and failing. The laws that form

the foundation of our food protection and govern the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

and the FDA were enacted over 100 years ago. These allegations wouldn't be nearly as troubling if it

wasn't for the fact that this is a regulatory body that is directly responsible for the safety of our food. In

fact, 85% of known food borne outbreaks are associated with foods that are directly regulated by the

FDA. ("Detailed record ," 2009) As of 2008 the FDA regulated over 450 billion dollars worth of goods

in the united states, all on a budget of 619 million dollars. That's one dollar spent for ever 727 dollars

in food regulated. So let me ask – How do you inspect 727 dollars of food with only one dollar to
spend? The answer is quite simple – You don't. The number of FDA inspections done per year have

fallen dramatically over the past 40 years. Since 2005 the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition has lost over 600 inspectors and 20% of its science staff. To put that in tangible terms one out

of every five FDA food safety scientists has lost their job. Despite all these atrocious numerical facts

less than half of federal food safety funding goes to the FDA. A recent study by the US Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention estimated that each year, 47.8 million episodes of food-borne illness

occur in the US, resulting in almost 128,000 hospitalizations and about 3,000 deaths. (Grossman, 2011)

A 500-page report by a committee of the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council

recommends, among other things, that the US FDA shift “from a reactive approach to a risk-based

approach” to food safety. (Benac, 2010) What this report is trying to say is that the FDA shouldn't

wait until problems arise to start fixing them, but instead use a proactive approach to food safety and

fix problems with proper regulation before they happen. Safe Food International (SFI), a coalition of

consumer organizations from around the world, created a set of guidelines outlining an ideal national

food safety program. The current system in the United States still falls short of that goal. (Dewaal,

2007) The outbreaks in 2006 and 2007 are simply the latest symptom of our outdated and failing food-

safety system. The need to modernize our food laws and create a strong, science-based Food Safety

Administration is absolutely overwhelming.

Many things may cross your mind as you enjoy a meal. The scents, the flavors, textures, tastes,

and colors all literally barrage your brain with an outright sensory overload of information. During this

mental enfilade of pleasurable neurochemicals associated with eating you may stop to ponder the place

from which your meal originated, or to whom your money goes when you buy it, but rarely if ever do

you question the safety of the food you consume on a daily basis. This false sense of security

invariably, leads to deaths, and it is because of this that we must remain steadfast and vigilant in the

fight for transparency in the food industry and the bodies that regulate them. It is only then that we can

hope to put teeth back in the bulldog.

Myers, JPM. (2009). why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a

criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol a. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(3), 309-

315.

Pelletier, DLP. (2006). Fda’s regulation of genetically engineered foods: scientific, legal and political

dimensions. Food Policy, 31(6), 570-591.

Detailed record fda food safety funding in the spotlight. (2009). Journal of Environmental Health,

71(7), 72-72.

Grossman, MRG. (2011). United states: food safety modernization act. European Food and Feed Law

Review, 6(1), 61-64.

Benac, NB. (2010). Enhancing food safety: the role of the food and drug administration. Canadian

Medical Association Journal, 182(12), 1288-1290.

Dewaal, CSD. (2007). food safety and security: what tragedy teaches us about our 100-year-old food

laws. Vanerbilt Journal of Transitional Law, 40(4), 921-935.