Then why is it when a lot of these FDA types retire or resign from government service, they end up working for these same industries with which they have an "adversarial" relationship?
I don't see much evidence of an "adversarial" relationship, if anything, it looks pretty cozy from where I stand. Considering the FDA is against the labeling of GMO foods, I don't really trust them to have my family's best interests at heart.
I'll stick with avoiding man made foods as much as possible because they don't have a good track record.
Soy's health record?! You have to be kidding! When studies out there show that soy has enough phytoestorgens to affect estrogen hormone levels in both men and women, that can't be healthy.
Simple. The good ones get recruited by private industry because they understand the agency, know the players and possess a high level of competence. I know many companies that recruit scientists from the FDA because, after working with them on an approval or other issues, they find that they know what they're doing and would create value for the company. There are many folks at the FDA who can earn much more money in the private sector than they can in public employment. They find their way to industry because industry is actively pursuing the best talent.
I don't see much evidence of an "adversarial" relationship, if anything, it looks pretty cozy from where I stand.
Where exactly do you stand? I've worked with various departments of the FDA on product approvals and regulatory issues for more than a decade. The FDA is against labeling of GMO foods as such because no one can prove that there is any reason to do so. One of the greatest Americans in history was Norman Borlaug. He saved billions of people from starvation thanks to his pioneering work in genetically modified foods. It was called the green revolution.
I'll stick with avoiding man made foods as much as possible because they don't have a good track record.
ROFL! Yeah, and I suppose you'll use our declining life expectancy as proof. Good grief!
When studies out there show that soy has enough phytoestorgens to affect estrogen hormone levels in both men and women, that can't be healthy.
Is that why we see so many men wearing bras now? Saying that isoflavones are phytoestrogens is just another gross mischaracterization of the issue by those who don't understand it. Unlike estrogen, isloflavones are tissue selective and can have estrogen-like effects in some tissue but either no effects or antiestrogenic effects in other tissues. There are a number of recent studies that clearly show how different isoflavones are from estrogen. You'd have to look for them and then you'd have to be able to understand the research. Applying the term phytoestrogen to isoflavones is terribly misleading since it doesn't fully or accurately describe isoflavones. Use some common sense. Soy makes up about 12% of the diet of the elders on Okinawa. That's a lot of soy. These same people live longer than anyone else on the planet and have some of the lowest rates of cancer and Alzheimer's in the world. If soy was the poison you would have us believe it is, how is it that anyone on this island is living long enough to become an adult? There are children who drink nothing but soy milk during the formative years of their lives. You'd think that they'd be suffering all sorts of afflictions from this poison and wasting away at a young age. Where are the statistics? If soy is poison, and we consume far too much of it, show me where the ill effects are being manifested in our health. We're living longer than ever. The only place this is happening is in your fevered imagination.