Third Edition of the EVER Popular - Because They CAN!

I understand ignorance, I really do.  I got married out of ignorance, and learned the hard way through 6 torturous years of demeaning subservience to a self professed godlike creature that was as she described herself, incapable of error.  I was ignorant of that aspect of her rather bizarre personality for quite some time.  However, after a few years of that servitude, I changed, and no longer accepted the status quo, and that led to our going separate ways.  Ignorance.  That does not mean stupidity, it means not having knowledge of a specific thing or things.  As in, I was ignorant that she was a witch before I married her. 

Ignorance in business, is a whole different matter.  When cyclamates hit the market in the fifties, processors were ignorant of the potential effects of long term consumption of cyclamates causing increases in cancer. 

What's wrong with this scenario?

To start with, the FDA has not ever, EVER, taken the high road and required manufacturers of artificial sweeteners, or for that matter, any additive, to conduct long term feeding studies on their proposed new additives. 

Does that make any sense at all to you?

Personally, I do not in any way shape of form, believe that the FDA is ignorant of the fact that short term feeding studies may show that a specific chemical is not out and out toxic, but that doesn't preclude the fact that long term feeding studies need to be done to determine if there is a cumulative effect.  As happened with, cyclamates.  The FDA cannot claim ignorance that there is a possibility of long term problems with any chemical additive into our food supply.  And yet, there are still no requirements for long term testing.  Given that scenario, it would be possible to find a use for a compound that has lead in it.  This is strictly conjecture, but let's just say that my new lead compound can be added to, let's just say, bread dough, and it increases the rising ability and softness by 50%.  And all at a modest cost of less than a penny a loaf.  I feed it to mice for the required 60 days, and if none die, then I can get the FDA to approve it to be used in the food industry.  WOW!  Lead compounds, but they are safe, according to the FDA and based on my study I did feeding mice.  So, bread bakers start to buy my lead and add it to bread, kids everywhere start to have difficult times in school, can't learn, can't sit still, parents everywhere start to forget everything, crime skyrockets, people begin to die off for unexplained reasons. 

Am I liable?  Can I be sued by any of the people that were hurt, diseased, or died?

No, of course not.  I didn't make them buy the bread and eat it.  I didn't make the bakers buy my poison and put it into their bread.  And I didn't make the FDA approve the poison for use in food, in fact I fulfilled all the requirements that that fine organization insists I perform in order to get my poison approved.  Can all the bakers out in the world come back and say that they were ignorant of the fact that the lead compound might be hazardous? 

That is the tough one.  

Since it was approved, even with the minimally required testing by the FDA, then how can they be held responsible?  They were ignorant.  Is the FDA liable?  Ultimately, yes.  But it is something that cannot be proven in a court at this time.  Big business runs this country.  It won't happen.  Business does things that are to their advantage, and they do it because they can.  Smaller businesses it seems put the health and livelihood of their consumers first, and it shows.  Look toward spending your food dollars wisely, and read the labels, check with store managers to verify that their produce is non-GMO, that if they don't carry REAL all natural brands of products or organic products then you will shop elsewhere and tell all your friends to do so as well.  And then do it.  Don't let your health and well being be destroyed by big agribusiness, just because they can!