FDA Policies Regarding Raising Chicken - Essay Example

FDA Policy Introduction The Food and Drug Administration is an agency in the US Department of Health and Human Services.It tests, observes, endorses, and sets up safety standards for chemicals, foods and food additives, cosmetics, drugs, medical and household devices. It can stop untested products from dominating the market and take legal action to prevent sale of certainly harmful products that involve a safety or health risk. However, FDA currently has oversights in its regulations on a variety of products that affect the life and health of American citizens (Allport-Settle 34). FDA policies regarding raising chicken FDA defines precisely how chicken should be raised in terms of the treatment given and the methods used to keep them. Its policies outline how antibiotics should be used or should not be used in poultry production. This is to slow down the development of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. The agency has trumpeted the policies as the beginning of termination of the misuse of drugs on chicken (Allport-Settle 30). However, the FDA missed the point. While the policies call for the end of using antibiotics to make chicken grow faster, they approve continuous use of such drugs to compensate for unsanitary and overcrowded conditions and prevent diseases at firm operations that produce poultry food. The prophylactic or preventive use of antibiotics resembles their use for growth promotion including similar low doses that are equally responsible in the antibiotic resistance. The FDA encourages the use of preventive drugs necessary to assure chicken health. Left unaddressed is whatever that makes this use ‘necessary’. The use of antibiotics to make chicken grow faster seems to be in its last stages, though much will depend on how rapidly drug companies comply with the policies and whether the food poultry industry complies at all. According to the public health advocates, the fight now shifts to the use of such drugs to prevent diseases. This is a much steeper hill to scale; their misuse lies at the center of industrial food poultry production, yet the FDA has renounced its responsibility to stop it. In 2005, FDA banned the use of fluoroquinolone in poultry production in the US to reduce the occurrence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter. However, little is known regarding the potential effectiveness of this policy (Luangtongkum 72). A research was conducted with an objective of following temporal changes in the occurrences of Campylobacter among chicken from two conservative producers who declared their termination of fluoroquinolone use in 2002, only three years before the FDA’s ban. Another objective was the occurrence of this antibiotic disease in conventional chicken products to those from producers who do not use antibiotics. Chicken samples were collected from three antibiotic-free keepers and two conventional chicken keepers over the course of five months in 2004 and 15 weeks in 2006. Fluoroquinolone resistance rates were compared among Campylobacter isolates from the diverse producers. From the results, it was established that there was no major change in the percentage of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter segregates from the two conventional keepers over the period of study. Further, Campylobacter strains from both producers were significantly more probable to resist fluoroquinolone compared to those from the antibiotic-free ones. Therefore, fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter might be persistent contaminants of chicken products even after ceasing to use on-farm fluoroquinolone. The FDA’s ban on the use of this antibiotic in chicken rising may therefore be insufficient in reducing resistant Campylobacter in chicken products. FDA policies regarding genetically engineering corn For about two decades, FDA has been analyzing genetic modification methods for drug-biological growth as well as the development of new foodstuffs. The agency has carefully created policies to accommodate the evolving and changing world of biotechnology. Under FDA policy concerning foods from new plant types, stuff that would be a food additive added during traditional manufacture of food should also be treated as a food additive if introduced into a foodstuff using genetic modification of a crop. Generally, the FDA policy states that substances that are introduced into food intentionally would be viewed as additives. They include those that have unknown toxicity, unusual chemical functions, or would be new key dietary constituents of food (Nelson 66). Current FDA regulations do not require food firms in the US to tell consumers when their foodstuffs contain transgenic crops. However, the large amount of genetically engineered corn and soy grown here indicate that a high percentage of about 60% of processed substances contain genetically engineered products or meat fed with modified corn. The Center for Food Safety has petitioned FDA to change their policies and require that all engineered corns be clearly labeled. According to the policy developed in 1992, agri-biotech firms may voluntarily consult FDA (Richards 124). Companies working to create new genetically engineered corn are not allowed to consult FDA, nor are they allowed to follow FDA’s proposals after consulting. Consumer interest groups propose that this process be mandatory, so that FDA approve genetically engineered corn before letting it out to the market. The FDA counters that the organization currently have no adequate time, resources, or money to carry out exhaustive safety and health studies of every proposed genetically engineered food product. Furthermore, the current FDA policy does not allow such kind of intervention. Genetically modified corn is widely produced in the US and has the potential to solve hunger problems and help preserve and protect the environment by reducing upon herbicides and pesticides as well as increasing yields. Yet there are numerous challenges especially in the areas of regulation, safety testing, food labeling, and international policies. Most people feel that Genetic engineering is an inevitable wave, and they cannot afford to disregard a technology that has many potential gains. However, caution should be taken to avoid causing harm to human health and the surrounding because of enthusiasm to embrace this powerful technology (Richards 130). FDA policies on amalgam fillings From the early 19th century, decaying teeth have been repaired using mercury amalgam fillings. The practice has led to many debates as the number of people reporting health problems increased. In its final policy in 2009, FDA deemed amalgam fillings safe for children older than 6 years and adults. According to this agency, clinical studies have found no connection between heath problems and dental amalgam filling. The quantity of mercury measured in the bodies of individuals with these fillings is below levels linked to adverse health effects (Hilts 57). For some toxicologists, dentists, and advocates, the concept that mercury has been proved to hurt the kidneys, the neurological systems, and other organs is a good reason to avoid it. Affordability, durability, and quick installation is the basis of dentists who use amalgam, and costs 20% less than complex glass or resin ionomer fillings. Those who argue against banning amalgam believe that poorer people will be discouraged from fixing tooth decay (Hilts 60). Conclusion FDA plays a major role in stabilizing the standards of products in the current market. Though its policies on animal and poultry sustenance have been criticized, they have some sense in it and thus should be considered. The 1992 policy makes it clear that pre-market clearance is needed if there is scientific uncertainty on the safety of bioengineered plants like corn. The policy also clarifies that labeling will be necessary if the composition of engineered corn differs significantly from what the agency expects of it, or if such corn contains potential allergens. As much as amalgam is harmful to health, it can still be used but in exception of patients with mercury allergy. The FDA statements should include scientific evidence and risks of using these fillings, such as the risks of inhaled mercury vapor. Such a statement will help patients and dentists make informed decisions regarding the use of dental amalgam fillings. Works Cited Allport-Settle, Mindy J. Investigations Operations Manual: FDA Inspection and Investigation Policy and Procedure Concise Reference. New York, NY: Pharmalogika, 2010. Print. Hilts, Philip J. Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation. Carolina, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Print. Luangtongkum, Morishita T. “Effect of Conventional and Organic Production Practices on the Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Campylobacter Spp. in Poultry.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72.5 (2006): 3600–3607. Print. Nelson, Carl S. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act: Provisions and Analysis (Agriculture Issues and Policies). London: Nova Science Publishers, 2011. Print. Richards, Byron. Fight for Your Health: Exposing the FDA's Betrayal of America. New York, NY: Truth in Wellness Publishers, 2006. Print. Read More