Mo Betta Govt Regs Needed (re Boobs)

[PearlSB4U]

My general point being that government isn't infallible and sometimes it makes bad decisions that hurt people, the country, or industry or it prevents people from living their lives the way they choose. Some people put total faith in our masters in Washington. Me, I’m going to continue to be skeptical of everything they do.

Shopper,
Good point!
I certainly agree that "government isn't infallible and sometimes it makes bad decisions that hurt people, the country, or industry or it prevents people from living their lives the way they choose."
I also agree that we should always be "skeptical" of government doings; we should always be on our guard & be watchful that government doesn't become abusive of its powers.
Your full response also seems to recognize that sometimes government can do good things too.
I'm glad to hear you concede this point, 'cause I'd just about gotten the idea that you were a total anarchist.
Do you think that, in principle, "we the people" should expect our government to set reasonable regulations to achieve a clean, safe, non-toxic environment (air, water, food, medicine...)?

 

[Rita]

......
Do you think that, in principle, "we the people" should expect our government to set reasonable regulations to achieve a clean, safe, non-toxic environment (air, water, food, medicine...)?

.
The things listed here are not isolated in microcosms or microclimates, but can affect populations across state lines and countries. The corn on the cob I'm eating for supper is irrigated by the Rocky Mountain snow melt! There are very few natural ecosystems left - man has pretty much changed all of them as well as modified foods, etc. We do not live in a vacuum! I want reasonable regulation.

.

 

[30ashopper]

Shopper,
Good point!
I certainly agree that "government isn't infallible and sometimes it makes bad decisions that hurt people, the country, or industry or it prevents people from living their lives the way they choose."
I also agree that we should always be "skeptical" of government doings; we should always be on our guard & be watchful that government doesn't become abusive of its powers.
Your full response also seems to recognize that sometimes government can do good things too.
I'm glad to hear you concede this point, 'cause I'd just about gotten the idea that you were a total anarchist.
Do you think that, in principle, "we the people" should expect our government to set reasonable regulations to achieve a clean, safe, non-toxic environment (air, water, food, medicine...)?

At the federal level I think it should be more about research and information. I don't feel the feds should be setting much regulation. There are some exceptions to this, for example the safety of imported goods or regulating commerce between the states. Aside from outer influences like that I think the states and local governments should be relied on more heavily. I'd like to see the influence and control the federal government substantially reduced.

 

[PearlSB4U]

At the federal level I think it should be more about research and information. I don't feel the feds should be setting much regulation. There are some exceptions to this, for example the safety of imported goods or regulating commerce between the states. Aside from outer influences like that I think the states and local governments should be relied on more heavily. I'd like to see the influence and control the federal government substantially reduced.

So--if I understand your position--in the instant case (environmental, food & medical impacts on breast health), you would prefer that each of the 50 states individually set whatever minimum regulations might be deemed necessary.
?
To me, that would seem to be incredibly cumbersome, confusing & in the end, ineffectual.
Or, perhaps, this is one of the "exceptions?"
"Exceptions" would seem to be warranted in all cases in which the actions of one state impact another state--which means there are probably more exceptions than non-exceptions.

 

[idlewind]

You still have not answered the question of how the massive amount of testing that would be needed to make a dent in the problem would be paid for? When you are 14 trillion in debt and going an additional 1 trillion plus in debt this year, you cannot add new programs that cost more money.

 

[PearlSB4U]

You still have not answered the question of how the massive amount of testing that would be needed to make a dent in the problem would be paid for? When you are 14 trillion in debt and going an additional 1 trillion plus in debt this year, you cannot add new programs that cost more money.

Idlewind, in post #5, you asked "who will pay?"
In post #7, I responded "WE will pay."
Now...you're asking a different question: "how can we pay--or should we pay--in light of our existing debt & budget problems?"
The answer to these new questions depends on one's priorities--your priorities are different from mine--& consequently our answers are almost certainly different.

 

[30ashopper]

Idlewind, in post #5, you asked "who will pay?"
In post #7, I responded "WE will pay."
Now...you're asking a different question: "how can we pay--or should we pay--in light of our existing debt & budget problems?"
The answer to these new questions depends on one's priorities--your priorities are different from mine--& consequently our answers are almost certainly different.

From reading the article is sounds like research is being done, and the FDA is tuned into the latest advances. Warning women and parents of the risks would be a good step if the evidence shows some relationship between a particular chemical and breast cancer. From there, it's up to the individual to make the decision.

Note most of the research is private, so why are you so worked up over the FDA's involvement?

The EPA is watching closely to see if and how the NTP's new tests pass political and scientific muster. So is the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which guides chemicals testing in Europe. With added data from mammary glands, policymakers could have more reasons to keep unsafe substances off the market.

This is where they tend to overstep and make mistakes. Like I said doing research and warning people of possible dangers is one thing, banning products for sale is another. I'm sure you think the federal government should ban a lot of substances - tobacco, fast food, kids meals, sliced cheese, to name a few.. because you probably feel the federal government should protect us from our own decisions. I disagree with that kind of thinking completely. People aren't stupid and they aren't sheep, stop treating them that way.

 

[Andy A]

Shopper,
Good point!
I certainly agree that "government isn't infallible and sometimes it makes bad decisions that hurt people, the country, or industry or it prevents people from living their lives the way they choose."
I also agree that we should always be "skeptical" of government doings; we should always be on our guard & be watchful that government doesn't become abusive of its powers.
Your full response also seems to recognize that sometimes government can do good things too.
I'm glad to hear you concede this point, 'cause I'd just about gotten the idea that you were a total anarchist.
Do you think that, in principle, "we the people" should expect our government to set reasonable regulations to achieve a clean, safe, non-toxic environment (air, water, food, medicine...)?

I'm not Shopper, but the key words in your post are reasonable regulations. Even us Conservatives are for that but many proposed and in place by the federal government do not meet that statement.

 

[scooterbug44]

What is so unreasonable about requiring pharmaceutical and chemical companies to test mammary cells too because many "safe and approved" products are being found to cause breast cancer or deformities?

Seriously, we're just talking about requiring that they test the mammary glands instead of chucking them in the trash. This is just a little more data from the same lab rats they are already studying, biopsying, and dissecting as part of clinical trials.

They're already testing for various other cancers, adding breast cancer isn't a major change. NOT testing for it is a major oversight.

 

[30ashopper]

What is so unreasonable about requiring pharmaceutical and chemical companies to test mammary cells too because many "safe and approved" products are being found to cause breast cancer or deformities?

Seriously, we're just talking about requiring that they test the mammary glands instead of chucking them in the trash. This is just a little more data from the same lab rats they are already studying, biopsying, and dissecting as part of clinical trials.

They're already testing for various other cancers, adding breast cancer isn't a major change. NOT testing for it is a major oversight.

From the article it sounds like this is the direction federal testing standards are headed. The research only came out last week!

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104077