The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

FDA stonewalling administration while giving Big Tobacco free pass

by Kerry Lane, M.D. - 02/16/16 5:58 PM ET

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine has yielded insight into mutations associated with tumors in pediatric patients and the carcinogen aflatoxin, known to contaminate tobacco. I myself wrote in 1999 on the need for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate aflatoxin levels in tobacco, which was the basis for the landmark United States v. Philip Morris case. Then, in letters published by The Hill in 2007 and 2008, I called for FDA aflatoxin legislation, which passed in 2009. Aflatoxin levels were to be publicly released over two years ago.

Inexplicably, the FDA still has refused to release this crucial public health data “until it can be put into a format the public can understand.”

{mosads}In October, the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a study examining aflatoxin levels in smokeless tobacco. The results found aflatoxin below the limit for human foodstuffs and alluded that aflatoxin was not an issue in smokeless tobacco. But because users of smokeless products often develop oral cancers only after several years of usage, there is a grossly underappreciated risk for aflatoxin in tobacco. If the FDA is going to put a regulatory framework in place it must be timely, comprehensive, complete and not dismissive of the role of aflatoxin and the growth of cancer cells in humans.

The FDA’s failure to release any aflatoxin data from the tobacco industry is gross negligence, if not worse. This data is over two years overdue per federal mandate. Children and adults are being exposed to poisonous primary, secondary and third-hand tobacco products while the FDA conceals the data to cover for the newly regulated tobacco industry. President Obama should inquire why his legacy of tobacco regulation is being stonewalled by the FDA while the industry gets a pass.

From Kerry Lane, M.D., Palm Beach, Fla.

Editor’s note: The writer holds three worldwide patents that relate to aflatoxin in tobacco.

US’s two-party political system creates candidates with two faces

At age 70, I’ve watched our two-party system rapidly evolve into opposing factions more bent on political succession than positive gains for America and the American people. To defend my case, please allow me to use Hillary Clinton’s candidacy as a basis.

Many years ago, I voted for William Clinton. From an economic perspective, it may have been the best vote I ever cast. Under his leadership, our nation had higher incomes (at all levels), the longest economic expansion in our history, the highest home ownership in history, the lowest unemployment in 30 years, the smallest welfare rolls in 32 years, the lowest poverty rate in 20 years, the lowest government spending in three decades and had actually paid off about $360 billion of our national debt. These were remarkable achievements. It showed what the right leader could accomplish.

As first lady, Hillary Clinton was closer to the action than any other. She was a savvy politician, going on to become a senator, secretary of State and now a presidential candidate. The next two presidents dropped the ball, each building on the economic failures of the other. Today, Hillary Clinton openly espouses her intent to build on the “successes” of the Obama administration. After living through her husband’s accomplishments, why she now aligns herself with the far less impressive accomplishments of President Obama is perplexing. The only conclusion I can come to is that she seems to have jumped on the new Democrats’ intent to win by offering “free stuff” to the voters.

From Tom Tyschper, Gilbert, Ariz.

Tags Hillary Clinton