[mookydooky]

I heard the same thing on the news. I believe the basis of the switch is allow the producers to claim them as perishable products in lawsuits where companies that declare bankrupcy try to return them, not necessarily to actually proclaim they are "fresh vegatables" in the usual sense. Law vocabulary is sometimes annoying and irrational, but strict definitions are often necessary to interpret the law better in a courtroom. Oh yeah, one more thing, it was the USDA, not the FDA. FDA regulates drugs, the USDA regulates food. The inclusion of french fries as a "fresh vegatable" is a change in the law to protect potato farmers from deadbeats, and nothing else.

As for imported drugs, I'm on the fence. I can see how it's cheaper, but the US also has trade laws that govern import and export, the two biggest challenges would come from NAFTA and G8 trade agreements. Because of NAFTA, if Canadian drugs are allowed, so are Mexican drugs and drugs from almost all of North America. Although Canadian drugs may be perfectly fine, I'm not sure about the quality of Dominican or Mexican drugs. If drugs from some other countries, say Great Britain are allowed, the drugs from the other G8 members have to be allowed. China is a member of G8. In China, you won't believe how many fake drugs are passed off as the real thing. It's such that I'm almost afraid of buying Advil except at the hospital. A couple of months ago, a bunch of people were arrested and prosecuted for selling fake baby formula with no vitamins. A dozen babies died from malnutrition. Because drugs are so expensive, I can easily see some unscrupulous characters trying to push either fake or diluted medications as the real thing with disastrous consequences.

However, even with all that aside, drugs in the USA are just way too expensive and lower income families just cannot afford them. If you do not have a prescription plan or Medicaid, drugs can put a serious dent in your disposable income, especially if you have chronic illnesses that require constant medications. Case in point, AIDS. I think I read somewhere that AIDS medications cost over $200 per week. That is extremely expensive for the demographic that usually catches AIDS. There should be something done to keep the costs of medications down, but as of yet, I don't know what can be done.

The thing is, the pharmaceutical companies have been making great advances in drugs. Something like Zoloft can be life altering for some people. These great advances cost a great deal of money in both research and development. I'm talking billions of dollars. The drug I take for my high blood pressure, Norvasc, was developed by Pfizer. Pfizer typically spends $5 billion annually in R&D. They have to recoup the money some how, or they can't develop new drugs. For each winner, like Viagra, they have dozens of losers. Then when the patent expires, everyone can make it, including everyone who did not spend $5 billion in R&D to make it in the first place. I'm telling you, when the Viagra patent expires, you'll be able to get it over the counter like an aspirin and pay $3 for a bottle of a hundred, instead of one pill.

Drug companies are willing to take big risks in R&D because one winner can make them billions of dollars during the term of the patent when they can charge whatever they want. Without the protection and monopoly granting powers of the patent, no one would be willing to take R&D risks. Without risk, there's no innovation and we wouldn't have all these wonderful drugs. In many ways, the patent is a double edged sword. It can lead to VERY high prices, but at the same time, it's the prime motive for innovation.