Judicial Activism

[Peter_Puget]

Story

 

If a judge is more qualified than is the FDA, why waste all those tax dollars on labs and technicians?

[TheJiggler]

Seems like maybe we didn't spend enough tax dollars on this one, . . . .

"The (FDA's) statement that a safe level cannot be determined is simply not sufficient to meet the government's burden,"

 

But I guess with the science phobia the Bush Administration has this is to be expected.

[catbirdseat]

Story

 

If a judge is more qualified than is the FDA, why waste all those tax dollars on labs and technicians?

Come on, Peter, the conservatives are with the Judge on this one. It almost sounds as though you are critical. The FDA is bad for business, is it not?

[chucK]

More information from the NYT

 

"A 1994 law championed by Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, and Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, shields makers of herbal and nutritional supplements from strict adherence to F.D.A. rules that require drug makers to prove that their products are safe and effective.

 

Instead, the law defines nutritional supplements as food, which is assumed to be safe unless federal regulators can prove otherwise. After all, "if food producers were required to show a benefit as a precondition to sale, the sale of foods such as potato chips might be prohibited," Judge Campbell wrote."

 

 

Sounds like the judge is following the law. So the answer to the implied question of judicial activism seems to be "no".

 

To ban a food, the burden of proof is on the FDA prove that it is dangerous. The FDA's hands are tied in this case as they can't ban low doses of ephedra unless they have proof it is harmful. The current proof out there is basically linked to higher doses. However, since they suspected that low doses of ephedra were harmful, it was considered unethical to study it in humans.

[Peter_Puget]

No offense ChucK I am sure you are a fine litigator but I am waiting for an opinion form these guys!

[archenemy]

After all, "if food producers were required to show a benefit as a precondition to sale, the sale of foods such as potato chips might be prohibited," Judge Campbell wrote."

 

Oh the HORROR!

[catbirdseat]

The 1994 law is simply a bad law. The FDA exists because of all the people who used to die from taking "patent medicines" that were not tested or proven safe. Congress should repeal the law or amend it.

[chucK]

What I wonder is how it is determined what is a "drug" and what is a "nutritional supplement".

[catbirdseat]

Nutritional supplements are all derived from natural products, usually plant extracts, ephedra for example. Drugs are synthetic or semi-synthetic.

Edited April 15, 2005 by catbirdseat

[foraker]

So, if 'interpreting the law and the Constitution' is considered 'judicial activism', is interpreting the Bible considered 'religious activism'?

[selkirk]

So does that mean coke and marijuana are nutritional supplements and therefore shouldn't be regulated?

[Squid]

My special brownies are simply a nutritional supplements.

[bootsy]

So does that mean coke and marijuana are nutritional supplements and therefore shouldn't be regulated?

 

Clarence Thomas might go for this -- if the Coke had a pubic hair on it.

[Dechristo]

So, if 'interpreting the law and the Constitution' is considered 'judicial activism', is interpreting the Bible considered 'religious activism'?

 

It depends on a person's particular point of view.

 

In both cases, it could be considered heresy.

[Dechristo]

So does that mean coke and marijuana are nutritional supplements and therefore shouldn't be regulated?

 

Clarence Thomas might go for this -- if the Coke had a pubic hair on it.

 

My special brownies are simply a nutrional supplements.

 

I haven't experienced the exumation of Anita Hill before!