Yeah, it's a good idea to treat every industrial food and every food-stuff that is a processed food-thing, whether or not made to resemble real food, as candy or drug ... because who're we kidding--it's simply not food.

Why does our FDA allow Americans to consume so many things that aren't food?

I was surprised to learn what the FDA does and doesn't regulate.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm047470.htm

Charter of the Food Advisory Committee (November 18, 2009)

http://www.fda.gov/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/foodadvisorycommittee/ucm120646.htm

"The Committee provides advice on emerging food safety, nutrition and other food- or cosmetic-related health issues that FDA considers of primary importance for its food and cosmetics programs. The Committee may be charged with reviewing and evaluating available data and making recommendations on matters such as those relating to: (1) broad scientific and technical food- or cosmetic-related issues; (2) the safety of food ingredients and new foods; (3) labeling of foods and cosmetics; (4) nutrient needs and nutritional adequacy; and (5) safe exposure limits for food contaminants.  The Committee may also be asked to provide advice and make recommendations on ways of communicating to the public the potential risks associated with these issues and on approaches that might be considered for addressing the issues."

"Safe Exposure Limits" is a subjective term. Modern medical science is basically one large experiment where we the people are the subjects.

There are a large number of lobbyists who are spending a lot of money on 'research' in order to convince the FDA that certain ingredients (additives) are safe: http://lobbydata.com/Directory/Agency/Food-Drug-Administration-Fda

I feel fortunate to be informed enough to even be suspicious. I am more fortunate that I can afford act on it. Many are not and many cannot.

It is interesting - I was trying to find out funding levels for other departments in the FDA. Not a lot of material out there, however I did come across the fact that the Tobacco division actually allows outside organizations to fund their research: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/AbouttheCenterforTobaccoProducts/ucm292048.htm

And if you just pick one program: Cigarette Tobacco Reference Products Program (UC2) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-FD-14-001.html , you see

"Section I. Funding Opportunity Description

FDA's Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) is seeking to develop a cigarette tobacco reference products program that will require significant collaboration and research efforts with outside organizations.  The selected organization(s) will develop tobacco reference products representing American blended cigarettes to be used for non-clinical investigational purposes by tobacco manufacturers, contract and government laboratories, and academic institutions.  The selected organization(s) will collaborate with these stakeholders, including FDA, in developing the tobacco reference products."

In that doc, there is a little detail as to the funding levels:"The number of awards is contingent upon FDA/CTP appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. FDA intends to commit up to $6,700,000 in FY 2014.  Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations, availability of funding and awardee performance."

This really gets to the heart of the matter:

"Safe Exposure Limits" is a subjective term. Modern medical science is basically one large experiment where we the people are the subjects.

And your other point is a good one: most people can't afford to act on this knowledge.

Is it safe to say we should avoid most things that are:

1. Canned _____.

2. Corn-fed _____.

3. Microwave _____.

4. Nonorganic ______.

5. Farmed _____.

6. ______ with artificial hormones.

7. GMO ______.

...because those are all code words for "processed"?