You might want to look at that food twice

Do you ever think about what you're really eating? The contents of that prescription medicine the doctor gave you?. The author of "Getting what you pay for" claims that the FDA is in a critical condition where the necessary tasks it is supposed to perform are being neglected due to a lack of funding. Necessary tasks include inspecting foreign and domestic foods and drugs. The author of "Food for thought" claims that the FDA food-safety inspections are failing due to inefficiency, inconsistency, and uncoordination of the administration. Each author provides a series of facts used to support their argument. Although the two articles do not contrast completely, each author has a distinct viewpoint on the subject, creating a broader view for the reader to interpret.

In "Getting what you pay for", the author focuses exclusively on the fininancial difficulties which the FDA is encountering. For example, the FDA is required to observe the validity of drug advertisements for consumers, and informational booklets given to the doctors. However, the FDA only received enough funding for 55 employees to perform this task. The author points out the idea that even though the agency's funding has been increased over the years, the amount of work loaded onto the FDA has increased faster. A rather disturbing fact, is that domestic food has a 25% chance of being inspected, every seven years. Many Americans, including myself, have overlooked food inspection in the past. Seeing the FDA's standard this low has changed my viewpoint (and probably others' as well) on the validity and efficacy of the FDA and the US government.

The other author (of "Food for thought") shows that the FDA is due for reorganization. The author quotes the GAO (Government Accountabilty Office) stating, "The current fragmented federal system has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources" ("Food for thought"). The GAO has also recommended that the government should "consider a fundamental re-examination of the system" ("Food for thought"). The government rarely admits that it is wrong, but when it does, something needs to happen. The research the FDA performs is also flawed in that they are not comprehensive. Recently, the FDA produced guidelines to help maintain clean and proper fruits and vegetables to help eliminate microbe infestations. However, it is not a uniform regulation, only a guideline for the producer.

The problem I am establishing is based on the American people's unawareness and overlooking the problems of the FDA. It seems that maybe, just maybe, we should look at the FDA differently now that it has lost its credibility. The two distinct arguments these authors make do not contradict one another, but allow the reader to percieve a broader viewpoint of the subject. One cannot determine a solution to a problem without contemplating all logical reasons for a solution. One must expand their horizons beyond their own view, and use others knowledge to create a comprehensive view. As we see (in this specific example), the FDA is due for some renovating financially and structurally due to its lack of funding and its lack of coordination. Next time you look at your food, think about what's really in it.

The articles cited and used for the purposes of insight and information cannot be accessed unless an individual or party has a subscription to the journal Nature. Here are the citations for the used articles:

"Food for thought." Nature (2007). Article : Nature. 14 Feb. 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.

"Getting what you pay for." Nature (2009). Article : Nature. 25 Nov. 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.