Here’s an illustration of some of the ways, in the micro, in which political appointees exert their influence and express their ideology. The example is almost goofy considering its subject matter, although to those involved with the decision I’m sure the example is quite serious.

Far below is a link to a current news article for additional info.

—–

THE PROBLEM:

As is stands today, it’s perfectly OK for companies to color our food and cosmetics with a RED dye made from crushed up insects, WITHOUT telling us.

Activists are pushing the FDA to require that labels state that the dye comes from insects.

But the FDA refuses to so require. Instead, the FDA proposes to merely require that euphemisms for insect extract be used on labels, euphemisms like “cochineal extract” or “carmine”, euphemisms that are meaningless to the public.

CONSUMER HARMS: Who is hurt by the “secret” that the red color comes from insects:

* Jews trying to keep kosher are naturally offended because they are NOT being told they are consuming non-kosher animal products.

* Vegetarians are offended because they are unknowingly consuming animal products.

* Hypersensitive people with allergic reactions to insect extract are harmed. The FDA has disclosed (see news story below) that it has received 35 reports of allergic reactions to insect extract.

* Some members of the remaining general public like me are offended that the FDA would have EVER ALLOWED industry to hide the controversial source of the color from us. We have a right to know these things, dang it! Don’t treat us like children.

—————————
BUSINESS HARMS FROM REQUIRING FULL DISCLOSURE THAT COLOR COMES FROM INSECTS: (speculative)

* Consumers would stay away from products that use insect extract, choosing rival products that do not use such extract.

* Existing businesses would be inconvenienced as they spend more money trying to re-formulate their products to eliminate the need for insect extract (while still keeping a high quality of red color), so they don’t have to make any offensive disclosures.

——
HERE’S THE MICRO-POLITICAL SITUATION:

The FDA commissioners are political appointees.

Food and Drug rules strike a balance between Safety, and the public’s need to know, and the need to promote American business interests.

Let’s look briefly at how two different political philosophies might approach the issue of mandating disclosure of the presence of insect-extract in our food and cosmetics:

1) A more business-biased FDA would NOT want to require that labels say “Insect Extract”, because we would imagine that consumers would stay away from such products. If no harm comes to consumers from the secret, then business-friendly FDA commissioners could justify allowing companies to withhold the info from the public.

2) A more consumer-biased FDA would demand full disclosure, because we have a “right” to know what we are consuming. Such a position is not harmful to business, because ALL businesses are required to follow the same labelling rules - no business has an advantage.

POLITICAL QUESTIONS FOR YOU:

How much weight do YOU place on the importance of the CONSUMER HARMS (listed above) that flow from non-disclosure?

How much weight do you place on the BUSINESS HARMS (listed above) that are speculated to flow from requiring disclosure?

HOW MUCH disclosure do you want to require, and WHY? This is a choice between “Insect extract” vs. “cochineal extract or “carmine”

Where do your choices place you on the political spectrum? If the FDA’s position differs from yours, can you speculate as to why that might be?

[I speculate that the FDA, even Clinton’s FDA, has refused to require full disclosure as payback for campaign contributions (or other favors) from food and cosmetic companies].

CNN.com - FDA: You’re eating crushed bug juice - Jan 27, 2006

Cochineal extract, carmine should be listed on labels, officials say

WASHINGTON (AP) — That ice cream you’re eating or the lipstick you’re wearing just might contain extract from crushed bugs. On purpose.

And the government thinks you should know.

The Food and Drug Administration proposed Friday requiring food and cosmetic labels to list cochineal extract or carmine if a product’s ingredients include either of the two red colorings that have been extracted from the ground bodies of an insect known since the time of the Aztecs.

Release of the proposed rule came after the FDA received 35 reports of hypersensitivity to the colorings, the agency said. A 1998 petition by the Center for Science in the Public Interest asked that the FDA take action.

[snip]

The FDA ruled out banning the use of the colorings since it found no evidence of a “significant hazard” to the general population. It also declined to require that labels disclose the colorings are made from insects, as the Center for Science in the Public Interest had asked.

“Why not use a word that people can understand?” said center executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “Sending people scurrying to the dictionary or to Google to figure out what ‘carmine’ or ‘cochineal’ means is just plain sneaky. Call these colorings what they are: insect-based.”