The question is what you'll pick up be testing 30,000 that you'd miss on 10,000 or 20,000. I don't know the maths on that.
- Status
Sponsored Links
The US approved Thalidomide in 1998.
Tedious UK bashing.
"Our society has been thrown into turmoil, our economy paralysed. And there is no sign of a return to normality any time soon.
Indeed, just the opposite is true, as the institutions of the state indulge in ever greater fear mongering and repression."
Professor Angus Dalgleish.
Indeed, just the opposite is true, as the institutions of the state indulge in ever greater fear mongering and repression."
Professor Angus Dalgleish.
Sponsored Links
Over 30 years after they banned it many times...
And not for pregnant women...
Care to tell us which group (and their offspring) suffered the 'side effects' of thalidomide?
(The US only had 17 cases through limited 'testing' btw)
In fact the official heading the oversight of the drug was given a Presidential award for 'distinguished service from the federal government for not allowing thalidomide to be approved for sale in the US'!
Last edited:
I don't know what your point is? That the US allowed/allows the use of untested medicines?Over 30 years after they banned it many times...
And not for pregnant women...
Care to tell us which group (and their offspring) suffered the 'side effects' of thalidomide?
(The US only had 17 cases through limited 'testing' btw)
In fact the official heading the oversight of the drug was given a Presidential award for 'distinguished service from the federal government for not allowing thalidomide to be approved for sale in the US'!
It's quite simple...
The US has higher drug testing standards than the UK...
They prevented the use of thalidomide on pregnant women whilst the UK went ahead without proper safeguarding tests...
I really don't understand what you don't get - it's really very simple!
But ironically their food standards are way below the UK's...
However fear not, because we are about to join the race to the bottom in that respect...
An obscure rule is to be used to deny MPs a crucial vote aimed at blocking imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef, sparking fresh fears about food quality after Brexit.
We? You know what you need to do then don’t you?
E
EddieM
Rather than single out the UK, you might want to say the EU. As all drugs/vaccines are approved for use in EU member states by the EMA (since the 90's). Also, on what basis do you say UK/EU standards are lower, some up to date relevant examples would be useful.
Regarding Thalidomide, it was developed tested and approved for use by West Germany (ironically East Germany didn't approve it) it was also approved for use in most of Europe. The devastating impact of the birth defects it caused was a big driver to all countries improving their testing / approvals process.
True, but why let the truth get in the way of a U.K. knocking post. You’re piddling on Ellie's bonfire!
Last edited:
S
sodthisforfun
Thalidomide changed the way drugs were tested and released for general use, basically learned the hard way. To use it as a relevant comparison of today's standards is incorrect and a waste of time imo.
No they're not, that's why quite a lot of food/drink is already imported from the us, their animal welfare standards are lower which has led to certain products being banned.
https://techround.co.uk/business/american-food-standards/
Various studies have been conducted into ranking the food standards of different countries, taking into account not only safety, but also quality, affordability and availability. A study conducted by the Global Food Security Index (GFSI) found the following 10 counties to have the top overall scores for affordability, availability and quality and safety:
- Singapore
- Ireland
- United States (tied with the UK)
- United Kingdom (tied with the US)
- Netherlands
- Australia
- Switzerland
- Finland
- Canada
- France
From these results, the United States scored 99.4/100 for food safety, 100/100 for presence of food safety net programmes, and 100/100 for nutritional standards. The US also shares joint third place in the studies’ rankings with the UK.
Whilst they share the same overall score, the UK scored 100/100 for food safety, 100/100 for presence of food safety net programmes, and 100/100 for nutritional standards. Hence, the UK and the USA both have some of the highest food standards anywhere in the world.
Ireland was another country ranked in the top 10 for food security, coming in 2nd out of 113 countries evaluated. Ireland scored 99.2/100 for food safety, 100/100 for presence of food safety net programmes, and 100/100 for nutritional standards.
Whilst these are the results of only one study, these countries also rank highly in other pieces of research on food safety.
A study conducted by the Conference Board of Canada (another country likely to be have a trade deal with the UK after Brexit) titled World Ranking: Food Safety Performance included Ireland (2nd place), France (3rd place), the UK (4th place) and the United States (5th place). This particular study focused on three major areas, these being:
- Food safety risk management
- Food safety risk assessment
- Food safety risk communication
All in all, the food standards of the USA and Australia amongst others, are very much on par than those of the UK…
Gosh I'm surprised a study funded by DuPont would put USA near the top.
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Deleted member 18243
- General Discussion
