Politics and Public Safety

So back in January, I posted about the FDA and their attempt at pre-empting state laws with their regulations regarding labelling laws (there is also a link to Greedy Trial Lawyer post on the same topic). The basic rationale is that the FDA does enough to protect the citizens of the United States and the legislation in the several states would cause a checkerboard of regulations which makes it hard for the pharmaceuticals to comply.

Well, from TortsProfBlawg, there is this troubling story from the Union of Concerned Scientists. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 18.4% of scientists responding to the survey and working for the FDA stated that they "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document."

Not only that, but 61% of the respondents said that they knew of cases where political appointees had inappropriately interjected themselves into FDA determinations. Almost half, 47%, think that the "FDA routinely provides complete and accurate information to the public." Furthermore,

81 percent agreed that the "public would be better served if the independence and authority of FDA post-market safety systems were strengthened."

70 percent disagree with the statement that FDA has sufficient resources to perform effectively its mission of "protecting public health…and helping to get accurate science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health

Based on this, the Bush Administration wants to support pre-empting state laws that would bolster this? That would afford people some protection? Ok, now I am concerned.