56 research outputs found
Sort by
Dead People Don’t Eat: Food Governmentenomics and Conflicts-of-Interest in the USDA and FDA
Get PDFConflicts of interest permeate the governance of the federal advisory committees that issue recommendations to consumer protection agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and therefore, American consumers need a federal solution to protect their health from biased recommendations. In order to promote a business-friendly food pyramid, agribusinesses and food industrialists lobby for dietary guidelines that boost their sales. The resulting guidelines cause great damage to public health, spur environmental pollution, and result in a loss of democratic freedoms. As a result, the FDA and USDA\u27s bifurcated task of protecting both food producers and consumers, creates a conflict of interest within the agencies that often favor the food industry over consumer protection.This paper describes the problems embedded within the FDA and USDA\u27s conflict of interest and the resulting revolving door of the heavily invested lobbyists, and finally, suggests statutory amendments to solve this problem. The proposed amendments will dispense with ineffective disclosure requirements and eliminate the possibility of waiving conflicts of interest for advisory committee members. By rebalancing the composition of the advisory committees and the scientific basis for the dietary recommendations, the proposed amendments will close the loopholes that large food industrialists currently abuse. As a result, consumer protection agencies, such as the FDA and USDA, are empowered to police the federal advisory committees issuing the dietary recommendations and prevent government officials from breaching their fiduciary duties to American consumers
Wait Not, Want Not: The Importance of the Statute of Limitations in Qui Tam False Claims Act Cases
Get PDFnon
Is Down Syndrome Doomed? How State Statutes Can Help Expectant Parents Make Informed Decisions about Prenatal Down Syndrome Diagnoses*
Get PDFGiving birth to a child with Down syndrome is a choice and one that should be well-informed. It has become a trend for expectant parents to abort fetuses with Down syndrome before fully weighing their options.[1] Expectant parents may automatically assume that an individual with Down syndrome will not lead a worthwhile life and that raising the child will pose too many challenges for them.[2] In order to minimize the number of fetuses with Down syndrome that are being aborted (which may be greater than 90%),[3] expectant parents need access to up-to-date, comprehensive information about all aspects of raising a child with Down syndrome, including the many positive aspects. Whatever decision a parent makes regarding raising a child with Giving birth to a child with Down syndrome is a choice and one that should be well-informed. It has become a trend for expectant parents to abort fetuses with Down syndrome before fully weighing their options.[1] Expectant parents may automatically assume that an individual with Down syndrome will not lead a worthwhile life and that raising the child will pose too many challenges for them.[2] In order to minimize the number of fetuses with Down syndrome that are being aborted (which may be greater than 90%),[3] expectant parents need access to up-to-date, comprehensive information about all aspects of raising a child with Down syndrome, including the many positive aspects. Whatever decision a parent makes regarding raising a child with consent. Part IV examines current state and federal laws that require healthcare providers to give information to expectant mothers who receive a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis. Part IV also addresses why a law requiring post-Down syndrome diagnosis information is not unduly burdensome. Specifically, Part IV looks closely at the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act and state statutes in Missouri, New Jersey, Alabama, and Virginia. Part V discusses why laws already enacted on this issue are inadequate and proposes a model statute that all states can follow in crafting their own similar laws. Finally, Part V addresses potential concerns related to the proposed law like cost, enforcement, and First Amendment rights, and how those issues may be resolved
Gubernatorial Emergency Management Powers: Testing the Limits in Pennsylvania
Get PDFWe live in an age marked by natural disasters, pandemics, and terrorism. Individually and in combination, these destructive forces provoke socio-political and economic havoc across the country. Pennsylvanians are intimately familiar with the devastating effects of flooding, severe tornadoes, and crippling snowstorms. Moreover, the very landscape of Pennsylvania bears the scars of the wreckage of a failed terrorist airplane hijacking. Such disasters, be they attributable to nature or humankind, present unique challenges to state and local governments. During such crisis, officials-from small-town mayors to the Governor-are called upon to make critical, time-sensitive decisions. Some of these decisions will be wise and prove effective, while others may not. Against this backdrop of seemingly impending crisis, it is critical that the legal powers of elected officials be clearly understood before they are needed. This article explores one such disaster-related legal issue by answering the question: When the Governor of Pennsylvania declares a state of emergency, what are his emergency management powers, and what is the breadth of the scope of these powers? Answering this question requires an understanding of state governors\u27 powers in general, which is presented in Part II of the article. Part III discusses the constitutional and statutory authority for the Pennsylvania Governor\u27s emergency management powers. The apparent breadth of these powers is explored in Part IV, wherein the Governor\u27s powers are analyzed in the context of legislative history. Part V analyzes effective "checks" on the Governor\u27s powers and details a specific instance of a legal challenge to the Governor\u27s declaration of a state of emergency. Part VI concludes with the answer to the central inquiry.  
Follow the Money: Insulating Agribusiness Through Lobbying and Suppression of Individual Free Speech
Get PDFEach year, the global food and beverage industry, made up of food suppliers, manufacturers, and retailers, generates more than 58 million to candidates for federal office in the 2010 election cycle alone.[2] In a time when the health and safety of our food is called into question, one wonders who is protecting the interests of consumers.[3] With the advent of Citizens United v. FEC, corporations are entitled to greater First Amendment protection than ever before, as the government is prohibited from making distinctions or imposing regulations based upon the identity of the speakers who are exercising their First Amendment rights.[1] Additionally, the decision set forth that corporations have no cap on spending for the election or defeat of candidates.[2] President Obama commented that the ruling "opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy . . . giv[ing] lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way-or to punish those who don\u27t."[3] At the heart of the matter is our First Amendment right to free speech. The First Amendment includes guarantees that Congress will make no law prohibiting or abridging the exercise of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the petitioning of the Government for a redress of grievances. Corporations assert that their donations to candidates for public office are an exercise of their right to free speech and further their corporate speech.[4] However, whistleblowers insist that corporations are not individuals, and should not be protected as such; and that corporate contributions should be limited to protect against corruption.[5] This Note argues that with Citizens United, special interests such as agribusiness now wield the greatest political and economic power in history, allowing them to further drown individual free speech with agricultural disparagement statutes and lobbying.[6] Private advocacy nonprofits rely on voluntary donations to enhance the impact of individual voices on elections. Yet corporations can simply make a large, tax-deductible donation to their chosen candidate at a crucial moment in the election, saving or defeating the candidate and preserving their corporate interest.[1] Paired with corporate practices that emphasize profits over the interests and welfare of the American people, such as utilizing agricultural disparagement statutes, industries such as agribusiness have been granted carte blanche to suppress individual free speech. With unlimited corporate funds flowing to favorable candidates, the ruling has the potential effect of suppressing public opinion by using corporate funding to further agricultural disparagement statutes. Section I will discuss commercial speech, food labeling, and the constitutionality of veggie libel laws, as well their effect of insulating agribusiness from criticism. Section II contains an analysis of Citizens United and its potential effect on agribusiness. Section III sets forth a proposed solution for dulling the impact of Citizens United with transparency, campaign finance reform and disclosure
Doctors, Dioceses, and Decisions: Examining the Impact of the Catholic Hospital System and Federal Conscience Clauses on Medical Education
Get PDFIn a time when health care reform and the limits on First Amendment freedom of religion are persistent subjects of debate, Catholic restrictions on health care have made it to the forefront of public concern. Catholic providers prohibit a variety of medical procedures traditionally viewed by the Church as contrary to the tenet of respect for human life and dignity. Many Americans view this as an unconstitutional restriction on care. As a result, the growing presence of Catholic providers, namely hospitals, has become a major point of contention in many communities. The potential barrier to medical services raises concern not only for potential patients, but also for medical students whose chosen specialty may include a prohibited service. This article identifies some difficulties that may emerge for current and prospective medical students and advocates that both groups should be required to contemplate (1) their personal beliefs as they pertain to religiously-restricted care, and (2) the effects those beliefs will have on their medical education and training. This article also gives a comprehensive background of the history of the Catholic hospital system in America and analyzes the federal "conscience clauses" and their implications for the instruction and practice of medicine. Finally, this article concludes that a mandatory bioethics curriculum is absolutely crucial to ensure adequate ethics training for medical students
A Remedy in Sight: International Clinical Research Regulation in the Wake of Guatemala and Nigeria
Get PDFNon
Federal Contractor Liability: The Hanford Decision
Get PDFDuring World War II, the U.S. Government sought out contractors in the name of “patriotism” to research and develop nuclear materials for this country’s defense. Nearly seventy years later, we are still dealing with the effects of that research. However, the issue of who should bear responsibility for the long-term effects is still being argued. One of the major issues is whether those contractors are allowed to raise the federal contractor defense.The common law federal contractor defense arises out of basic principles of governmental immunity. The defense protects government contractors from liability for any harm arising out the performance of a government contract, specifically in the areas of military and defense work, if the contractor was following the government’s directions and the work performed was in an area of “uniquely federal” concern