Skip to main content

How To Submit Comment Re: FDA (FDA-CVM) 2023 budget

FDA-CVM is continuing their refusal to properly address various longstanding, and rectifiable issues. In their "2023 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees", FDA writes glowingly about FDA-CVM regulatory actions. (FDA-CVM related material starts on page 172 https://www.fda.gov/media/157192/download). 

FDA-CVM has continuously stated it can't meet its obligations under FOIA law because of "resources". FDA-CVM has also stated it doesn't have the resources to hold regular, public meetings. In its request for "$43 million in additional investments in food safety modernization, including animal food safety oversight", FOIA is not mentioned. Public meetings are not mentioned. FDA-CVM does not make it known that there is significant interest from the public in these areas. The agency simply ignores the issues. 

Part of my argument over the years is that FDA-CVM doesn't want, nor do they care to fix these issues. I believe part of the proof for my argument is right here in this 2023 budget "justification". If FDA-CVM took its obligation under FOIA law seriously, then why haven't they detailed any financial need to hire additional FOIA staff? The agency is currently estimating wait times of 18-24 months for all FOIA requests, and they haven't released any public statement as to how they're actually going to rectify this issue. Their only plan seems to be to continue to allow the problem to get worse, while requesting $43 million in "additional" funds from taxpayers. 

Members of the public can comment publicly on FDA's 2023 budget request. Directions on how to do so are pictured below. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FDA Refuses To Speak Via Phone To Veterinarians & Consumers Regarding Ongoing Regulatory Issues With Aflatoxin

Today, FDA confirmed they would not be granting phone call requests in relation to longstanding and ongoing regulatory issues with aflatoxin in dry pet foods, mainly dry pet foods produced with the ingredient corn.  For years, Dr. Steven Solomon and other federal employees of FDA-CVM (Center for Veterinary Medicine) have continuously refused to speak to consumers, consumer groups, and members of the educational field regarding the myriad of issues surrounding various regulatory actions by FDA-CVM. Why wouldn't the FDA-CVM want to have open, honest, and continuous dialogue with the regulated consumers, or with the veterinary field?  For years, FDA-CVM has been regulating the pet food industry by what they call their "opinion", instead of a properly passed rule. It has also been discovered that employees of FDA-CVM held secret meetings with the major grain and dry pet food lobbying group AFIA, where FDA-CVM actually worked with AFIA to stifle regulations that would have bro

FOIA Request Reveals Severe Lack Of FDA-CVM Records On HPP

Years ago, I had a back and forth with FDA where the media department refused to specific whether "raw" pet food that had been subjected to HPP (high pressure pasteurization) had been subjected to a kill step or not. The FDA stated "HPP can be a kill step when effectively done, however, it must be properly validated to confirm the effectiveness in a pet food product. " I then asked FDA: Please define or provide me documents on "when effectively done" means as per FDA.  What does FDA deem to be properly validated to confirm the effectiveness in a pet food product? Does FDA approve a pet food company's use as HPP as effective or non effective before they implement this in their foods? After FDA-CVM refused to provide me further information, I filed a FOIA request with the agency for records on this matter. I eventually had to sue the agency under FOIA law, and force the agency to comply with my FOIA request. Years later, I finally have what FDA-CVM is st

Questions Regarding Answers' Lawsuit Against Kure Pet Food & Independent Farmers

WHY WOULD TWO WOMEN LEAVE THEIR OWN PET FOOD COMPANY? According to court documents, Roxanne Stone and Jacqueline Hill left Lystn and its Companies because Keith Hill was self-dealing by paying himself additional fees and profits through Lystn to his own independent consulting company; Roxanne and Jacqueline would have stayed with Lystn and Companies if Keith would have stepped-down as CEO, which they had requested because of his potential misconduct.  According to court testimony, Roxanne Stone and Jacqueline Hill had multiple meetings and attempted to rectify these serious issues prior to finally disassociating from the company they pioneered .  KEITH HILL AND DERRICK HILL REMAIN SILENCE REGARDING MONETARY MOVES Keith Hill's lawyer currently appears to be trying to make people believe that "all the facts" were reviewed in this case. However, the misconduct allegations of Keith Hill, which appear to be the very heart of why Jacqueline and Roxanne left Answers Pet Food, ha