FDA thinks DNA is a drug (or the FDA sucks reason #452)

[dead0man]

link-FDA

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you were wondering, consuming DNA can't hurt you and nearly everything we eat contains DNA.

[dead0man]

look, we get that you're good at strawmans, you don't have to keep showing us.  We're all very proud.

[dead0man]

the ironing is delicious

[dead0man]

I'm really not seeing the "triggered by this"....not everything everybody posts about is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD ^TM.  The FDA thinks DNA (altered or otherwise, it doesn't matter, DNA is harmless) is a "drug".  That is stupid.  I'm pointing it out.  I'm not about to go march, riot or sucker punch someone that is pro-FDA.  It's just a thread on a stupid message board.


...but if you want to picture me in tears banging on my keyboard, be my guest.  I suspect you're all projecting a bit, but whatever.

[dead0man]

First off, dead0, this isn't about consuming DNA, as should be clear to anyone giving even a cursory look at the draft. It also isn't about the FDA regulating all DNA.  It's specifically about the FDA regulating gene manipulation done for the purpose of treating a medical condition. For better or worse, the FDA acts as our nation's gatekeeper for new medical therapies.  Perhaps it would be better to call such manipulation a medical device.  I don't really care what the FDA chooses to call it.   By whatever term one wants to use, this clearly falls within the intended FDA remit, even if the language being used to justify doing so is clunky because gene manipulation wasn't a thing when the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

What medical condition did the Enviropig fix?  It takes 20 years and a billion dollars to get something through the FDA process.  Maybe saving the environment isn't important to you, but what about unneeded pain and injuries to cows and farmers?  We should make them wait 20 years before we can have hornless dairy cattle?  How about the FDA only regulate things that are actually dangerous?  and of course their other important work of making sure something labeled "mayo" has eggs in it and nobody anywhere ever eats something labeled "cheese" that is really just "cheese product".  The horror.

A gizmodo article on the topic.

I'm guessing CRISPR scares the sh**t out of you guys, right?


-and thank you to the last few posters for actually discussing the topic unlike the first three clowns

[dead0man]

I'll agree that the USDA approach of being more lenient with non-transgenic gene manipulation makes sense.

Aye

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't need NEW regulations, need to get rid of or fix the bad ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

k...but the fast growing salmon?the milk cows without horns? the many many other things that aren't even being looked at because the people that might look into it won't because they know it's not worth spending a billion dollars and waiting 20 years for?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but they look for that sh**t.  These universities that come up with this stuff don't just edit the genes and hand them over to farmers.  They're doing science!

[dead0man]

link-CNBC
link-anitmedia
This O'Niell guy seems pretty cool....and pro-pot.  Potential pick to head the FDA.

[dead0man]

It's a chemical product that has been made or altered by human activity. That makes it a drug.

Are you really saying any chemical product made or altered by human activity is a "drug" and should be regulated by the FDA?  Do you really want to say that?  'cause that seems to be what you're saying.

[dead0man]

Yes, except:
A.this is very very targeted manipulations we're talking about here.  It's not going to be poisonous because they aren't putting the genes for poison in.
2.even if by some unknown by science at this time mechanism somehow makes hornless milk cows highly toxic or whatever (which is totally impossible, but I'm humoring you here) they'd notice it in the texting