This is not about the Blackberry. A conspiracy-theory laden report in the BBC tells how the US sweetener (corn?) industry manipulated the FDA to crush competition:

Legal advice and contact with the FDA had led Harvey to believe that the extract from the berry would be allowed under the classification “generally recognised as safe”. Having been eaten for centuries in Africa, without anecdotal reports of problems, it could be assumed not to be harmful.

But the FDA decided it would be considered as an additive which required several years more testing. In the poor economic climate of 1974, this could not be funded and the company folded.

“I was in shock,” says Harvey. “We were on very good terms with the FDA and enjoyed their full support. There was no sign of any problem. Without any opportunity to know what the concern was and who raised it, and to respond to it – they just banned the product.”

One might also suspect Harvey was naive, or there was a general lack of planning on his part, or his financial backers threw in the towel. However, other aspects of the story suggest industrial interference played a role.

A car was spotted driving back and forwards past Miralin’s offices, slowing down as someone took photographs of the building. Then, late one night, Harvey was followed as he drove home.

“I sped up, then he sped up. I pulled into this dirt access road and turned off my lights and the other car went past the end of the road at a very high speed. Clearly I was being monitored.”

Finally, at the end of that summer, Harvey and Emery arrived back at the office after dinner to find they were being burgled. The burglars escaped and were never found, but the main FDA file was left lying open on the floor.

A few weeks later the FDA, which had previously been very supportive, wrote to Miralin, effectively banning its product. No co-incidence, according to Don Emery.

“I honestly believe that we were done in by some industrial interest that did not want to see us survive because we were a threat. Somebody influenced somebody in the FDA to cause the regulatory action that was taken against us.”

All questions of “if you suspected foul play why didn’t you plan to defend yourself” aside, I have to wonder why it was only a product marketed for the US. Barclays was a backer, so surely they were aware of market options in Europe, let alone Asia.

The BBC highlights a study that shows humans can actually sense danger with smell, assuming prior experience/exposure:

The 12 volunteers were exposed to two “grassy” odours, and none of them could accurately tell the difference between them.

After they were shocked while smelling one of them, they developed the ability to discriminate between the two.

Do they mean marijuana? Was this really a study to get people with addictions to steer clear? Imagine the impact to the cocaine market if convicted addicts were conditioned so the smell would turn them away.

Ethical questions abound, but it also makes me think about the discussions I often have with risk managers. They do not smell danger while the technical security engineers do, and thus a discussion erupts about who is right and what is real. In the end, the primary issue I see with the study above is that it shows pre-conditioning response as opposed to the ability to actually smell danger itself.

You might be amused by a story about a someone who just can not bear the risks of wildlife:

The case was brought by the exasperated beekeeper after a year of trying vainly to protect his beehives.

For a while, he kept the animal away by buying a generator, lighting up the area, and playing thumping Serbian turbo-folk music.

But when the generator ran out of power and the music fell silent, the bear was back and the honey was gone once more.

Is this case not like suing a landlord for the behavior of a tenant?

The beekeeper should have sued whomever aided and abetted this bear, rather than the organization that provided it habitat, no?

Wonder if anyone will sue Bear Stearns for eating up all the money in Wall Street.

The “ran out of power” argument is interesting too. Perhaps a low-power music device that does not need a generator would have made more sense? Then again, it sounds like Serbian turbo-folk music might need a lot of power, even if running from a USB stick.

I wrote about this issue a while ago, and now the questions I pondered are being answered. The BBC reports:

A mandatory certification programme is now being developed by the US Toy Industry Association and the CPSC as part of the House of Representatives bill on consumer safety.

The plan provides for stricter procedures for analysing safety during the design and manufacturing of toys and the testing of finished products, as well as factory audits.

Sounds good, although the fact that there are huge beef recalls in recent news does not inspire a lot of confidence in the controls system proposed. In particular, I was just reading how a massive California meat recall was started after undercover video was released by the Humane Society.

The recall by the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company, based in Chino, Calif., comes after a widening animal-abuse scandal that started after the Humane Society of the United States distributed an undercover video on Jan. 30 that showed workers kicking sick cows and using forklifts to force them to walk.

[…]

The video was embarrassing for the Department of Agriculture, as inspectors are supposed to be monitoring slaughterhouses for abuse. It surfaced after a year of increasing concerns about the safety of the meat supply amid a sharp increase in the number of recalls tied to a particularly deadly form of the E. coli pathogen.

And in another case auditors discovered that their inspectors audited the wrong Chinese facility. Controls are definitely non-trivial to design and manage properly.

“The recall is obviously the big news,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society. “The longer-term problem is the inadequacies of the inspection system. How can so many downers [cows that can no longer walk] have been mistreated day after day within a U.S.D.A. oversight system that was present at the plant?

“We need more boots on the ground at the plants,” he said.

Yes, although the fact that the video on YouTube created a public outcry might suggest some technology solutions that could reduce this requirement for “boots”. Surveillance obviously has some advantages over moving bodies, especially in terms of remote locations. And the fact that surveillance, video and RFID, might also help ranchers manage their own stocks could make it a good thing for everyone. On the flip side, everyone knows that ranchers hate accuracy and measurements in the system as it shifts the balance of control away from them and into the regulators/auditors. That means higher tax and overhead implications. Like I said, controls are non-trivial to design properly.