Talk:Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration

Previous discussion of this material

The content on this page was moved from Food and Drug Administration in April, 2007, after extensive discussions by editors of that page. Please refer to Talk:Food and Drug Administration for the substance of the discussions which led to creation of this page. - Rustavo 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Per our previous discussions on Talk:Food and Drug Administration, I am restoring the NPOV tag to this content, which I believe places undue weight on outdated and poorly referenced criticisms of questionable relevance to the modern FDA and ongoing efforts by policymakers and others to reform it. I am concerned that this page may be used as a soapbox. Please do not remove the tag again without reaching consensus with the contributors to these two pages. - Rustavo 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the NPOV tag should remain on the article permanently regardless of any changes that are made, as well as be placed on all other Wikipedia articles, and placed on every other article written by man. Regulations 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion/merge?

As it turns out, this POV fork was created by User:Regulations, freshly blocked as a sockpuppet of the now-banned user Billy Ego. In light of the fact that this is a POV fork and criticism can be adequately handled in the main FDA article (now that the disruptive, POV-pushing single-purpose account is no longer with us), I'd propose deleting this article as a POV fork and merging relevant and notable criticism back into the FDA article in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. MastCell ^Talk 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We already had this discussion on the talk page of FDA. The consensus was for a fork. If you want to try to now create a new consensus, that is fine, but I am against it...and I am not a sockpuppet. Remember 02:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, you are. You're currently evading blocks. I wouldn't suggest doing that. // 3R1C 05:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Erm, assuming you are who I think you are. // 3R1C 05:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who you think I am but if you look at my history I doubt you will think that I am anybody but me. And please don't just assume I am a sockpuppet because I happen to be one of the people who actually supported forking this article and stand by that view. Also feel free to check out my contributions User:Remember/Contributions if you think I am some recently created sockpuppet.Remember 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC). In addition, feel free to check out the fact that I have been editing this article as early as December 2004 (See link [1]) so I think I know a little something about the history of this article. Remember 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess my sense was that the consensus you mention was driven by a prolific single-purpose account who browbeat many of the other editors. Maybe that's inaccurate; it's just my impression. Nonetheless, if this page is going to remain, it needs major work. No one has been motivated to improve it thus far - my sense is that it was a pet project of User:Regulations, who's now gone. If you support the existence of a separate page, are you willing to help improve it? MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think enough people care about this article to do anything about it. I saw we chop it back up into concise, coherent parts and put it back into the main article now that we don't have to worry about the work being constantly reverted or moved. // 3R1C 05:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter that much where the content is located? Maybe spend more time editing the content, and figure out where it'll go later. IMHO.--Dr.michael.benjamin 06:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It does: the issue is spin or framing of a topic by manipulating the context where it appears. In this case, it seems that someone wanted their specific take on the FDA - a huge essay on what's wrong with it - to appear in isolation.

And overall, yes: merge. Both this and the main FDA article need liposuction. Tearlach 12:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have been watching the FDA page for a long time now and the there are tons of critics of the FDA that keep on adding their personal gripes to that page. It is difficult to keep them out because many of them offer true information, but there criticism of specific agency actions shouldn't really be part of a general article about the agency. Thus, I like the idea of creating a fork so we can segment the problem: (1) get the FDA page up to snuff and keep it that way; (2) focus on trying to convey accurate critism of the FDA in a consise and well-referenced manner. It seems that the people that are against forking think that it gives too much credence to the criticisms, but I think it is just the opposite. If anybody just wants to learn about the FDA, they should be able to go to the FDA article and not have to be overwhelmed with tons of random criticism for various actions over the years. Remember 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was just one editor -_-. // 3R1C 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If by this you are stating that there is only one editor who has consistantly added criticism information to the FDA article, which has muddied it up, then you are wrong. As early as February 2005 User: RJII added the criticism that FDA was "[was] known to conduct armed raids of establishments that sell and manufacture [dietary supplements], such as one against the Life Extension Foundation in an attempt to force them to cease operations." Link to edit. Then User: 66.52.47.46 added the crticism that FDA had been corrupted when approving aspertame Link to edit in June 2005, and then someone added the criticism about how FDA was suppressing the research of Wilhelm Reich. So there have been lots of different people who have wanted to pile on criticism against FDA from time to time. That is why I want to keep them on this page so that they stop bringing down the quality of the FDA page. Remember 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Many topics are prone to troublesome or POV edits; it's one of the downsides of an open-edit encyclopedia. If you want a good article under such circumstances, the price is ongoing work to maintain it. It's not dealt with by creating another article as ablative armor. Tearlach 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Remember. It was a single editor that added so much of it. I hardly think vandalism or biased edits from nearly 2 1/2 years ago is really pertinent to current discussions. // 3R1C 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC) ((forgot to sign))

My point was this: if you think that this is just a one man problem you are wrong. Even if Regulations disappears forever, there will always be more like him to snip on FDA (as is shown by the fact that this has happened several times before in the article's past). IMHO the best way to deal with this problem is to create this fork so we can funnel all those people to this page and deal with it here. If others disagree that is fine, but that is where I stand. Remember 02:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, Regulations was the only editor adding questionable/POV material to the criticism section over the past two months, but I think his contributions were mostly restricted to the overregulations subsection - the other two sections were whittled down from stuff that I'm pretty sure wasn't his (although it appears he had a whole list of sock puupets of different apparent ideologies, so who knows?). I agree with Remember that he wasn't the first, and won't be the last person to try to use the FDA page as a soapbox for his or her personal grievance over the FDA.

In my opinion it doesn't really matter if the "criticism of the FDA" section is on the main page or a forked page - either way, it will be a POV magnet as long as it is so vaguely defined. I've tried to work a few of what I think are the most important current policy debates / reform efforts regarding FDA drug regulation into the history section in a "current events" format - we could certainly do the same thing for regulation of food and other items. The advantage of this is that it gives editors a stronger argument to cut out insignificant or outdated criticisms, or those which apply generally to topics like drug regulation or genetically modified food, but aren't specifically about the FDA. I'd propose that we have three options to consider: 1) Keep separate page for "Criticism of the FDA." 2) Move (edited) criticism section back to main page, but keep it basically in its current form. 3) Eliminate criticism section altogether and move appropriate, important policy debates into "history" or "current events" sections. My vote is to give option 3 a try. I believe Dr.michael.benjamin also suggested eliminating the criticism section a while back. Thoughts? -Rustavo 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 3 for me...criticism sections improve articles only insofar as they are redacted into the core text of the articles ("The FDA is good. People X say the FDA is bad for these reasons. In 1996, the FDA implemented the changes suggested by People X." is interesting and potentially relevant to a researcher.)--Dr.michael.benjamin 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, instead of having an obvious target for POV by having criticism in its own section or article, how about we try to incorporate the criticism into relevant passages about what is being criticized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3R1C (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Oops, my bad. // 3R1C 12:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Major revert

OK, I figured if we're going to debate the merits of the criticism page, we should at least revert it to a state before most of us gave up on trying to keep up with Regulations' damage. I took a quick look through the history on the Food and Drug Administration page (this material's former home), and decided that this version was a pretty good one, just before the section really jumped the shark. I give sincere apologies to well-meaining editors who worked on this page after that date - please feel free to undo the change if you feel it was inappropriate. -Rustavo 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rustavo; we have something to work with. I have to agree with the thread above that noted some old sources. However, it fails even to include a spate of law review articles from the early 1990's that criticized the FDA approval process of yore. (COI alert: I edited such an article when I was a law student.) I'm going to take a crack at it, *without* including such additional old sources. Bearian 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree it would be nice to focus on currently relevant criticisms of the FDA, rather than criticisms of the way things worked in 1975 or so. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

first sentence

Does the first sentence confuse others? First, I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. It could mean that FDA only regulates 25-cent products. It could mean that 25% of every purchase/product goes to fund FDA. If the latter is what this sentence is supposed to convey, the number seems inaccurate. I believe I've read that FDA functions each year on $3 per U.S. taxpayer, though this figure may only apply to CDER. Still, 25% on every product cannot be accurate. Perhaps if a quarter (coin) on every product sold in the U.S., even those not part of FDA oversight, were charged, then these quarters would add up to the FDA's budget? Sentence needs to be rewritten to make its meaning clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afterlaws (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I wrote that line and I'm sorry if you found it confusing. To put it another way, 25% of total consumer expenditures in the US are spent to purchase products regulated by the FDA. The purpose of the statement is to convey the importance & scope of the FDA's regulatory authority from a consumer perspective. For style reasons, I phrased the sentence so the the subject (the FDA) comes first. Please feel free to rephrase it if you find it unclear. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Should we nominate for deletion (with regards to the unencyclopedic tag that has been appended)?

Delete per WP:SOAP. // 3R1C 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Corollary: Comb topic and find said pertinent and current criticisms, cite them properly, and include into the main article, then call for delete. // 3R1C 03:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete/merge: My feelings are no secret. I think we should take what is salvageable here and merge it back into the main FDA article, trimming the excess baggage. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep: My feelings are unchanged. Eventually the nuts will come back and mess up the FDA page when we have stopped paying attention. This way they are at least confined to a separate article. Remember 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment if the article is written properly, and the critical commentary is incorporated into the article in such a fashion that it does not attract undue attention of casual preachers, it won't be so much a problem as having a page that says "ANNOUNCE YOUR DISCONENT WITH SAID ORGANIZATION HERE!" That's all this page is, a big giant target. Sure, that target might distract vandals from the main article, but tis possible to write the article in such a fashion that it'd be hard for a preacher to find a stable place to express their concerns. having a page that just asks for people to add more and more unsourced, outdated criticism is just a bad idea. // 3R1C 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete/merge. I can't think of any precedent for organising material so that one article acts as lightning rod for another (plus I still think the separate Criticism article is a POV fork). Tearlach 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The broad purview of the FDA, and the abundance of serious criticism across the board, makes the topic quite encyclopedic. Ombudsman 03:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The discussion is more directly related to the POV status of the article. I don't think anyone here is saying that the main FDA article should be without crits (for the well-stated reasons you asserted), but I think most of us can agree that the reason this article existed was so that Regulations had a soapbox to preach his anti-regulatory, Laissez-faire attitude towards drug control and distribution. I don't think anyone plans on removing pertinent information, insofar it is a current, documented criticism from reliable medical sources (as opposed to economists and financiers). // 3R1C 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete/merge I think as long as the sections of the main article dealing with "current events" and historically significant criticisms are well-defined and well referenced, it will not be hard to get a consensus to remove off-the-wall, poorly referenced additions. Conversely, ghettoising criticisms to a separate page is discouraging for those who might want to make a serious contribution. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 04:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Seconding Ombudsman (24/04/07), while "Criticism" could use clean-up, there are supportable (even not a few bona fide) and varied criticism contained on said article, too many for FDA article. Even reducing redundancy in Criticism article (my clean-up proposal) would leave much material. Afterlaws 22:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - as this is a unique, important topic in its own right, separate from what the FDA is or was. This can really use a clean-up, especially needing paper citations for older problems from the 1980's to 1990's. I just don't have time right now to do the research. I'll go along with any consensus to merge, however. Bearian 00:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's wrap up the above vote

OK, I had the admin who deleted this page restore it so we could finish deciding what to do with the content. So far the vote is Delete/Merge - 4 vs. Keep - 2. Let's give it five days and call the vote closed - if the final vote is delete, we should wait a week for people to merge appropriate content into the main page before deleting this one. Obviously with the recent sockpuppet incidents, there is some concern about the vote being thrown, but I'm not sure how else to handle this. Agreed? -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What about taking it to a formal WP:AFD? There, the problem of sockpuppets, first-time editors, and others who've come along in response to solicitation is well-appreciated. Tearlach 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with the deletion of the article. I don't vote for it, but it seems that this is what people want. Nevertheless, I am afraid we will wind up back here (with a fork of criticism of FDA) in about a year's time. So there is no need to go to AFD in my view. Remember 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if there's anyone who feels strongly it should not be deleted, then AfD is the way to go. However, if we are all OK with getting rid of it, then since it's already been prodded we could ask the deleting admin to re-delete it without an AfD. For the record, I'm still in favor of deletion and merging the relevant content back into the parent FDA article. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern about the previous deletion was that all the content on this page, including this discussion, disappeared into the ether. It should at least be archived on the main page since, as was noted, this issue is bound to come up again. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be redacted into the main text of the FDA article, inside the relevant sections. You learn more when there's deeper context, and that includes both sides of the story.--Dr.michael.benjamin 03:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion

Is there a talk page about merging or deleting this page again? I thought the consensus was to Keep. Bearian 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a split page from FDA with little revision, because that one was too long. This kind of split, IMO, is legit and should not be deleted. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the vote was four to four last night, which was the deadline I had suggested for bringing the vote to a close. Ties generally go to the keep voters. However, for some reason, someone deleted the page anyway (again). This is really starting to annoy me, and I actually voted for delete/merge. I guess the moral of the story is that one should stick to the formal AfD process or random admins will do whatever they feel like. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Other topics to cover

Some of these are just controversies involving FDA, but criticism is never far behind. In no particular order:

• Dietary Supplements, esp. Ephedra (too little regulation vs. unnecessary meddling)
• GMO and cloned foods (too little regulation vs. unnecessary meddling)
• Human cloning (US ban on human cloning is enforced by FDA)
• Vaccination (just link to the main controversy article, no need to rehash)
• Aspartame (again, just link to the main article)
• Gene therapy
• Placebo controls in cancer trials
• Access to experimental drugs (take it out of main article)
• Rights of research subjects (no-consent clinical trials of blood substitutes)
• Regulation of cosmetics (too little regulation vs. unnecessary meddling)
• Direct to consumer advertising of drugs
• Regulation of tobacco products (was shot down by supreme court, may come back)
• "One Food Agency" proposal (Food regulations in the US are spread out over 20+ agencies)
• Breast implants
• Methylmercury in fish (EPA has much stricter standards)
• Bottled water (again, EPA has much stricter standards)
• Whistleblowers alleging groupthink and worse (Dr. Graham)
• Disproportionate against small business (Utah Medical as opposed to Guidant)
• Antidepressants (Zoloft vs. Placebo vs. St. John's Wort study)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedumbyankee (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

+ cheese/raw milk debate (United States raw milk debate) Arronax50 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Terror tactics in 1987

This article in the American Chronicle contains some documentation of outrageous abuse of power by the FDA and criminal misconduct by several of its officers through the bureau's attempts, starting in 1987, to shut down the Life Extension Foundation. If sufficient reliable sources exist to corroborate this, this should justify a separate section. __meco (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you find more reliable sources documenting the FDA's armed and jackbooted thugs kicking down the doors of private residences and prying vitamin bottles out of the hands of the elderly, cackling with evil glee all the while, then yes, we can incorporate it. MastCell ^Talk 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dang, I must work in the wrong part of FDA. I'm missing out on all the fun! Seriously, though, can we limit this page to rational criticism? Read the article and tell me that this is a calm and collected individual. The FDA's regulation of alternative medicine products is a very real point of contention with a lot of reasonable arguments on both sides, but this is not what most people would consider a credible source. Just for the record, FDA does not kick down doors. We have the US Marshals do it.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

GMO or Genetically modified organism

We all eat genetically modified organisms (GMO). Is it correct that the FDA doesn't require any from GMOs or genetically modified food? 217.232.104.226 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any what? Remember (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If I remember right, the FDA's current policy on "GMO" human foods is that they require preapproval if the nature of the change presents a concern and that the method of modification is not important. The approval process is the same as the one for food additives. http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?recflag=&accno=A03410&rptno=GAO-02-566 is the GAO's investigation of FDA's process. USDA's AMS covers marketing of agricultural products and would probably cover any regulations on labeling requirements if consumer choice is the primary issue whereas FDA covers health-related labeling.Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Move suggestion

Just wanted to move this page to a more neutral title. I'm horribly biased, I know, but the current title invites soaping.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move to "Controversies involving the Food and Drug Administration." It may be a more pleasing title to those who feel criticism is unwarranted but it's not what the article is about. The article is a rather straightforward list of criticisms of the organization, not an exposition of controversies. The might not be an appropriate aticle for Wikipedia per WP:NOTADVOCATE since it reads like a list of political talking points but, if it does remain at Wikipedia and you're worried about "neutrality," add verified content refuting the criticisms in each of the sections. The title itself is fine. — AjaxSmack 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly a question of if the article should stay at a title that fails WP:NPOV by default. For the most part I WP:DGAF, just thought it was worth floating. Recasting it (and working on it) as a controversy list might make it a salvageable article, but I have a lot of other pet projects to work on (especially ones where I don't have an obvious CoI).Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why the title fails NPOV by default. There are many articles titled "Criticism of..." (see here for a list) and many more articles have sections on criticism. There is nothing in NPOV that precludes Wikipedia covering criticism of a topic as long it is verifiable and not original research. Recasting these criticisms as "controversy" is fine but the work should be done first and then the title can be changed to reflect that. As it stands now, the title is exactly what is contained in the article and should stay. — AjaxSmack 03:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tossed the request. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FDA bans safe drugs?

I've read news articles & heard criticisms of the FDA banning safe things (mostly artificial sweeteners) because they have board members from opposing companies that sell similar products. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Stevia#Political_controversy http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Stevia#Nutrasweet_hiring_FDA_board_members —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Malanine scandal. Late recal due to election times.

Watch the whole thing, read the floating text boxes. You can even contact this guy for citations on where he did his research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUB79WJ9ktQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-e1bIew5g

Critical overview from Reliable Source

"Strong Medicine: What's Ailing the FDA? Is America's consumer watchdog understaffed, overburdened, ethically challenged or merely misunderstood?" Readers Digest[2] MaxPont (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

More [3] MaxPont (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Even more[4] MaxPont (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I've removed this material (again) from the article. I'll go ahead and set out my concerns in more detail below:

• Sourcing: the article cites YouTube to accuse the FDA of spreading AIDS overseas. Please see the verifiability and sourcing policies; YouTube is not a good source for this rather exceptional claim. If this incident occurred and is notable, then we should be able to find appropriate sources.
• The material about Stevia is unsourced.
• The material about ephedra is sourced to an article in FDA Consumer. Needless to say, this source is not "critical", but lays out the basis for the FDA's ban of ephedra. It is inappropriate to use this source to support a "criticism" of the FDA.
• The material on red rice yeast is unsourced and needs to be removed as well. Citing Wikipedia is not appropriate sourcing; take a look at WP:RS or WP:MEDRS for some useful guidelines on proper sourcing.

Please take a moment to consider and respond to these concerns here before reintroducing these edits. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sourcing: the article cites YouTube to accuse the FDA of spreading AIDS overseas. Please see the verifiability and sourcing policies; YouTube is not a good source for this rather exceptional claim. If this incident occurred and is notable, then we should be able to find appropriate sources.

This is silly, this was broadcasted on MSNBC all over the world. The New York times published an article about it and the Youtube link is a link to the MSNBC broadcast. Why would MSNBC lie about this? Why would a world known news station lie to such a degree. You're just being ridiculous here.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E4DA1F3EF931A15756C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&&scp=1&sq=Aids%20Tainted%20Blood%20FDA%20Bayer&st=cse

(from the New York Times)

"MAY 1985 -- The Food and Drug Administration realizes that companies are still selling unheated concentrate overseas. F.D.A. official wants problem quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public, according to Cutter documents." (Internal documents have shown this).

• The material about Stevia is unsourced.

Wikipedia's own article on the subject sources it. It's not unsourced.

• The material about ephedra is sourced to an article in FDA Consumer. Needless to say, this source is not "critical", but lays out the basis for the FDA's ban of ephedra.

The source was to show the patent ramifications of the situation. The criticisms are what critics argue. The source was not intended to argue for criticisms. Again, another example of your ridiculous edits.

It is inappropriate to use this source to support a "criticism" of the FDA.

Again, that's not what I was doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.121.17 (talk)

OK, the Times is a good source and I'll go ahead and work that in. For the rest, Wikipedia is not a suitable source to be used in a Wikipedia article. The material needs be sourced here, in this article, to a reliable source. Also, this isn't a venue for you to insert your own criticisms (using "Critics claim...") The criticisms need to come from reliable sources. Thus, it is inappropriate for you to cite the FDA describing their ephedra ban, and then editorially insert: "Critics say the ban was bad because..." Anyhow, I think this can probably be solved with a bit more attention to Wikipedia's sourcing and content policies. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"For the rest, Wikipedia is not a suitable source to be used in a Wikipedia article."

Wikipedia references itself all the time (ie: one wikipedia page often links to other wikipedia pages). If you've ever read an encyclopedia (I guess reading encyclopedias is rare today since everyone just looks things up on computers), it's common practice for an encyclopedia to refer someone to another part of the encyclopedia in order to expand on a subject.

Politicians pressured the FDA (corruption)

NY times "F.D.A. Reveals It Fell to a Push by Lawmakers"[5] MaxPont (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gay Donor Ban

Updated and sourced information which I believe improves this section. The position of the FDA (as outlined in the last few sentences) is presented in an uncritical manner when in fact the motivation for their policy has been strongly questioned. For comparative purposes, the changes adopted by other countries in this area should also be noted. Why were these edits deleted? All sourced and based on fact. I have now undone this deletion. PinkPolitico80 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)PinkPolitico80

Hardly. Standard unbalanced POV-pushing synthesis, going beyond reporting of the criticism and moving into substantive analysis; using "claim" phrasing to suggest agency not acting in good faith without legitimate sourcing; redundant to NPOV-compliant spinout article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Undue Pharmaceutical Industry Influence

I edited this section to address several problems:

1) The first 2 paragraphs refer to complaints of undue pharmaceutical industry influence on the FDA cited by a former commissioner in 1969. I haven’t changed this yet, but I wonder if criticisms going back to the Vietnam War era are really topical to the article. Aren't there more recent quotes avaialable?

2)The fourth paragraph attibutes a statement to Consumer Union that is not supported by the cited reference, which is in any case does not meet Wikipedia WP:RS standards (“Drug Recalls” is a newsletter published by tort lawyers who use it to seek business conducting litigation against pharmaceutical companies.). I’ve deleted this statement less because the source was poor than because the cited article did not support the statement attributed to it.

3)The fifth paragraph points out a legitimate problem of doctors with financial relationships sitting on committees that write treatment guidelines. However, these committees are formed by private medical societies and are not directly related to the FDA in any way. Since the article is about criticism of the FDA, I deleted the statement.

4)Paragraph 6, alleging that a competitor’s antidepressant was held up by FDA to support a competitor, and Paragraph 7, making similar allegations about approval of a sunscreen being held up, appear to be pure WP:OR. None of the cited references contain or support the allegations made in the text of the article, so these two paragraphs were deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525082655/http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/speeding.html to http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/speeding.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629190236/http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/1992policy.html to http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/1992policy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

BIASED

I know that this article is focused exclusively on criticisms of the FDA, but for God's sake, it's biased as fuck! The guy or guys who wrote it didn't even have time to check their spelling I just corrected "Clandestien" to "Clandestine" in the 'Charges of FDA bias' section (how ironic); let me quote a few parragraphs of said section:

"A clear and indisputable historical example of how the FDA seemingly favors pharmaceutical industry either from clandestine direct money payments to FDA directors and scientific advisors or other undisclosed or unknown means was seen with the generic drug droperidol. Droperidol was a widely used antiemetic used perioperatively safely for over 30 years. During this time, and still currently, there has never been a single case reported in peer-reviewed medical literature of cardiac arrhythmias or cardiac issues when given at doses typically used for post-operative nausea and vomiting. Nonetheless, and without warning, the FDA issued a black box warning regarding QTc prolongation (a dangerous finding on ECG which can lead to cardiac arrest) with the use of droperidol. This effectively killed the common use of droperidol and made way for heavy usage of the much more expensive non-generic 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonists on the market. Interestingly, these newer drugs had also been shown to prolong QTc as much, if not more than droperidol. In addition, each of the 5-HT3 antagonists available at that time had peer-reviewed reports of causing significant cardiac abnormalities, and in some cases, death. Despite this obvious discrepancy that outraged the anesthesia community, the FDA persisted in keeping the black box warning, while at the same time did not place any restrictions on the equally (if not more) dangerous but much more expensive 5-HT3 antagonists."

Please either fix this or delete the article, if this can't be considered bias then I don't know what the fuck could be.

--177.230.93.9 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The language of Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration#Charges of FDA bias does appear preachy and one-sided, though I don't know anything about the objective importance of the concerns being raised. Maybe some of the material was lifted directly from a critical article without enough distancing to indicate that Wikipedia is neutral in these debates. The phrase 'sky-high user fees' sounds like an expression of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

My knee jerk opinion was in agreement however after a little research I am finding some very troubling facts. Here's one study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17519460 and this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12658255 more later... Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Funded by companies it regulates

https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-160444

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)