The FDA: Federal Doofus Association

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is a non-sequitar CR

Why do you think trans fat isn't how I described it?

My point is that the government often gets science wrong, and they shouldn't hold such broad power.

So is controlling city tap water. Saying that it's intervening with something that people put in their mouths does not make your case, even when you try and phrase it so that it sounds like they are making the food pyramid compulsory.

They don't ban private wells though.

Yes exactly, does it? That's what I was asking you. If it does then they are justified don't you think?

No. We aren't children. I don't support seatbelt laws either. The government's role should not be to protect us from our own choices.

caffeine-->feel like not drunk--> actually have alcohol poisoning == deceptive

If that's the case, why hasn't it been an issue with drinks like vodka and redbull?

Yes, so that people who want to drink energy drinks with caffeine have to go through an extra step, showing that they understand the risks and genuinely want to take them. And if they do they are free to do so.

They shouldn't have to.

You should sound different when you talk about the government banning non-hate speech than you do when you talk about them banning hate-speech. Way different. Same here. We're not going to ban the fda because they believe in some science research that claims 4 loko is unsafe. The slippery slope doesn't work here given the justification they used.

Four lokos may well be unsafe when misused - the point being that it's possible for people to responsibly drink it.

But..but what if I just want to pay somebody $1.62 a year to check all of my food for me? It's marvellously efficient.

They do not tell me what to eat, they are rather told by me to keep safe the food I enjoy eating.

The point of this thread is that they aren't simply just checking the food and informing you of the risks associated with consuming it. Also, your definition of 'safe' may well be different from other peoples - which means you want to impose your definition upon them.

CR

[Xiahou]

Yes exactly, does it? That's what I was asking you. If it does then they are justified don't you think?

Let's look at their reasoning:

GRAS status is not an inherent property of a substance, but must be assessed in the context of the intended conditions of use of the substance. The assessment includes a consideration of the population that will consume the substance. Therefore, the scientific data and information that support a GRAS determination must consider the conditions under which the substance is safe for the use for which it is marketed. Reports in the scientific literature have raised concerns regarding the formulation and packaging of pre-mixed products containing added caffeine and alcohol. For example, these products, presented as fruity soft drinks in colorful single-serving packages, seemingly target the young adult user. Furthermore, the marketing of the caffeinated versions of this class of alcoholic beverage appears to be specifically directed to young adults. FDA is concerned that the young adults to whom these pre-mixed caffeine and alcohol products are marketed are especially vulnerable to the adverse behavioral effects associated with consuming caffeine added to alcohol, a concern reflected in the publicly available literature.

In other words... Both alcohol and caffeine are GRAS. Alcohol and caffeine together are GRAS. BUT, alcohol and caffeine together and marketed to young adults is not GRAS. So it's being banned because of marketing. What a load.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When I drink, I (and most people) rely on being able to tell when I've had to much based on how I feel. You want the government to force counting or precise measuring. I want them to ban things that interfere (if they do) with that ability so that people don't think they can drive when they can't, and don't think they aren't drunk when they are near vomiting.

That's the basic difference, aside from the questions about the legitimacy of the science, which I think we are both doubtful of, or at least I'm doubtful you seem more sure. You are mandating something as well, you have to admit--you are putting the onus on me to examine everything I eat or drink, in the name of freedom (when you speak of stripping the fda of legal power).

Basically libertarianism is an overly-systemized version of a good political philosophy. It cuts corners for the sake of straight lines. And it's overly dramatic to, since all you are saying in the end is "people shouldn't have to mix their drinks on their own, they should have to keep careful count!".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Let's look at their reasoning:In other words... Both alcohol and caffeine are GRAS. Alcohol and caffeine together are GRAS. BUT, alcohol and caffeine together and marketed to young adults is not GRAS. So it's being banned because of marketing. What a load.

Studies suggest that the combined ingestion of caffeine and alcohol may lead to hazardous and life-threatening situations because caffeine counteracts some, but not all, of alcohol's adverse effects. In one study, a mixture of an energy drink and alcohol reduced subjects' subjective perception of intoxication but did not improve diminished motor coordination or slower visual reaction times using objective measures (Ferreira et al., 2006). In a dual-task model, subjects co-administered caffeine and alcohol reported reduced perception of intoxication but no reduction of alcohol-induced impairment of task accuracy (Marczinski and Fillmore, 2006).
• Because caffeine alters the perception of alcohol intoxication, the consumption of pre-mixed products containing added caffeine and alcohol may result in higher amounts of alcohol consumed per drinking occasion, a situation that is particularly dangerous for naive drinkers (Oteri et al., 2007).

From right before the bit you quoted. Do believe that it's inaccurate?


I'm curious what you guys think about San Fran banning happy meals (the inclusion of a toy with a meal of over 600 calories). It also seems very reasonable to me.

[Xiahou]

From right before the bit you quoted. Do believe that it's inaccurate?

Lots of things may lead to hazardous situations. Consumption of any alcohol can and does lead to such. Where's the standard? They try to use the GRAS standard as a fig leaf... tobacco is known to cause cancer- where's the ban? I guess the tobacco companies have better lobbyists...

Again, it gets back to the marketing- why were only 4 companies issued FDA warning letters? They aren't the only ones making caffeinated alcoholic beverages.

I'm curious what you guys think about San Fran banning happy meals (the inclusion of a toy with a meal of over 600 calories). It also seems very reasonable to me.

It's stupid. If, as a parent, I want to take my child to McDonald's to have a Happy Meal once a month- why can't I? The whole premise is that I'm too stupid to make an informed decision and need the nanny state to make decisions for me.

[Ice]

Oh well, back to mixing vodka with redbull. Try to ban those two products FDA.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Lots of things may lead to hazardous situations. Consumption of any alcohol can and does lead to such. Where's the standard? They try to use the GRAS standard as a fig leaf... tobacco is known to cause cancer- where's the ban? I guess the tobacco companies have better lobbyists...

I recall similar bans on certain tobacco products. And there are marketing restrictions there I'm sure you know...

Again, it gets back to the marketing- why were only 4 companies issued FDA warning letters? They aren't the only ones making caffeinated alcoholic beverages.

What's good about deceptive advertising with potentially lethal products?

It's stupid. If, as a parent, I want to take my child to McDonald's to have a Happy Meal once a month- why can't I? The whole premise is that I'm too stupid to make an informed decision and need the nanny state to make decisions for me.

No it isn't. What makes you think it's about you? This is all about restrictions on businesses. Every single restriction discussed in the thread has been about that. There is nothing about consumer choice here. Consumers can choose a huge variety of stuff (outside of illegal drugs which I recall you being against...). And I'm all for that. What I'm against is unsafe products, using industrial products in food that are unhealthy solely because they are cheaper, and obesity-causing kids meals that with a toy to sucker them in.

You act like you are in favor of consumer choice but really you are advocating company profit and requiring consumers to do extra research (how many calories in this meal, etc). You act like they are banning mcdonalds period.

Oh well, back to mixing vodka with redbull. Try to ban those two products FDA.

Why should they?

[rory_20_uk]

OK, then make clear provision of information mandatory.

In the UK one needs to provide the content of different constituents of food. It even has different colours depending on how "bad" it is.

[Beskar]

I think Chromium was more likely, at least for those lovely yellows and greens.

I know they used to use lead tetroxide for the red. It might be chromium for other colours.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No it isn't. What makes you think it's about you? This is all about restrictions on businesses. Every single restriction discussed in the thread has been about that. There is nothing about consumer choice here.

That's nonsensical. Restricting businesses means restricting consumer choice. If you ban some wine importer from importing wine from some country, that's restricting consumer choice. Just because the law targets the business doesn't mean the consumer isn't affected.

Why should they?

Because it's exactly the same ingredients.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's nonsensical. Restricting businesses means restricting consumer choice. If you ban some wine importer from importing wine from some country, that's restricting consumer choice. Just because the law targets the business doesn't mean the consumer isn't affected.

It's not about consumer choice, the key word is about--they aren't targeting the consumers. Will the consumer be affected--that's the whole point! They are supposed to be affected. Jesus. You wouldn't say that the illegality of asbestos is wrong because it restricts consumer choice. You're just talking past the issue completely.

Banning tasty food because it makes people fat is bad, banning a cheap industrial product is not--no one is is like "I want to be less healthy for no benefit at all to me!".

You're blindly following a principle. Think about the reasons we have government and about the reasons we want it limited. Embrace a little ambiguity. Then come to a conclusion. At some level of unsafeness of caffeine and alcohol mix, you would be in favor of the ban, correct? You are welcome to argue against the science or about being correct but not dangerous enough. That would probably require some research though.

But essentially, if people are taking a drink that carries a significantly unexpected risk of alcohol poisoning/drunk driving, that's a bad thing.

Because it's exactly the same ingredients.

CR

So what? You can buy tylenol, and you can buy alcohol. So is that the same as having a tylenol-alcohol combo drink? I suppose our lack of that drink is an infringement of consumer choice (and therefore inherently wrong, that was easy).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Now the march is on to ban energy drinks - for the children!

Mary Claire O'Brien, a professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine who helped foment the moral panic that led the FDA to ban Four Loko and three other brands of caffeinated malt beverages last fall, says the fight against demonic drinks is far from over. "These premixed alcoholic energy drinks are only a fraction of the true public health risk," she and co-author Amelia Arria, a researcher at the University of Maryland School of Public Health, warn in a recent Journal of the American Medical Association commentary. "Regular (nonalcoholic) energy drinks might pose just as great a threat to individual and public health and safety." O'Brien and Arria offer "3 reasons" for this conclusion:

First, caffeine has been clearly associated with adverse health effects in susceptible individuals.... Second, the practice of mixing energy drinks with alcohol—which is more widespread than generally recognized—has been linked consistently to drinking high volumes of alcohol per drinking session and subsequent serious alcohol-related consequences such as sexual assault and driving while intoxicated....Third, regardless of whether energy drinks are mixed with alcohol, recent research suggests that, even after adjustment for potential confounders such as heavier drinking patterns, energy drink use might confer a risk for alcohol dependence and perhaps nonmedical prescription drug use.

Then again, it might not. Like the association between caffeinated cocktails and risky behavior, the association between energy drink consumption and alcohol dependence may have more to do with the pre-existing characteristics of people who favor these beverages than the psychoactive effects of caffeine. O'Brien and Arria concede as much, although they also raise the "concerning" possibility that "caffeine's neuropharmacologic effects might play a role in the propensity for addiction." The title of their piece, "The 'High' Risk of Energy Drinks," allows them to mislead the public about the magnitude of the danger while hiding behind a pun.

CR