I can't agree with recommendations to replace the Delaney Clause. This clause in the FDA's charter represents a sane approach toward placing human values above business interests, which is where they should be.
The Delaney Clause simply states that the FDA is required to ban any food additive or other substance which can be shown to be a potential cancer hazard to humans or animals. However, there is nothing in the clause that forbids Congress to legislate, subsequently, that the ban is in appropriate. Obviously, the offsetting social values and advantages must be weighed against one another to determine what, in the long run, is best for the public.
Business has too often shown its apathy or downright unwillingness to sacrifice stockholder dividends when the public's well-being was threatened in some way. Furthermore, I don't believe that we should wait twenty years, or even a single year, to find out how many people develop cancer from a given source before worrying about banning the carcinogenic agent.
Although the Delaney Clause should be replaced, Congress might appoint a special committee whose members include people from consumer-advocacy groups and the industry in question. This committee could then hold public hearings as soon after a proposed FDA ban as is possible. It seems that within a 90-day period they should then be able to make a recommendation to the full Congress, indicating whether, based on the evidence they received, the substance should be banned or not..
If the ban is not recommended because of the unacceptable social trade-offs it would create, Congress could override the ban and require any product containing the substance could be required to be labeled so that the consumer might make the ultimate purchasing decision.
