Attention: Choir

[John Harvey]

It would seem that we need an effective way to name this behaviour and to name the behaviour that we expect of our regulators. The word "consistency" comes to mind, but perhaps more than consistency in attitude and vigilance toward Big Pharma and natural products, consistency with their mandate. If the mandate of the F.D.A. is to use its limited budget to provide the maximum protection of the U.S. citizenry, then what the hell is it doing, spending that budget on going after a product in which a death is a bizarre and extremely rare exception rather than a product in which death is a routine and common outcome? Holding the regulator to account for consistency of its actions with its mandate may go a lot further in changing its pro–Big Money attitude than merely pointing out the unfairness of picking on the little guy and removing the liberty to choose what foods and what food extracts to eat.

Any thoughts?
Cheers --

John
________________________________
________________________________

[Roger B]

Where is Pol Pot just when you need him?
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:03:19 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Attention: Choir
It would seem that we need an effective way to name this behaviour and to name the behaviour that we expect of our regulators. The word "consistency" comes to mind, but perhaps more than consistency in attitude and vigilance toward Big Pharma and natural products, consistency with their mandate. If the mandate of the F.D.A. is to use its limited budget to provide the maximum protection of the U.S. citizenry, then what the hell is it doing, spending that budget on going after a product in which a death is a bizarre and extremely rare exception rather than a product in which death is a routine and common outcome? Holding the regulator to account for consistency of its actions with its mandate may go a lot further in changing its pro–Big Money attitude than merely pointing out the unfairness of picking on the little guy and removing the liberty to choose what foods and what food extracts to eat.

Any thoughts?
Cheers --

John
________________________________
________________________________
--

.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).

[John Harvey]

Good thought!


________________________________