APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT FDA'S DECEPTIVE RESPONSE TO HINCHEY

[Guest guest]

> JustSayNo

> Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:32:59 -0400

> [sSRI-Research] APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

> RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT FDA'S DECEPTIVE RESPONSE TO

> HINCHEY

>

> For Immediate Release

> June 23, 2004

> APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT

> FDA'S DECEPTIVE RESPONSE TO HINCHEY

>

> Washington - The House Appropriations Committee

> today adopted language written by U.S.

> Representative Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) expressing

> concern over an apparently dishonest response from

> the Food and Drug Administration to a question

> Hinchey posed at a hearing. The measure was included

> in the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for fiscal

> year 2005.

>

> " At a hearing with the FDA Commissioner, I

> raised questions about a conflict of interest

> involving the FDA's Chief Counsel, " said Hinchey, a

> member of the Agriculture Appropriations

> Subcommittee. " The FDA's response to my question

> intentionally omitted critical information in order

> to hide a potentially inappropriate commercial

> relationship. For our committee to fulfill its

> oversight responsibility, we need to be able to

> trust the answers given to us by the agencies. The

> language I added to the bill was needed to put the

> FDA on notice that such behavior will not be

> tolerated. "

>

> At a subcommittee hearing earlier this year,

> Hinchey questioned FDA Acting Commissioner Lester

> Crawford about the relationship between the agency's

> Chief Counsel and the drug company Pfizer. Hinchey

> has raised concerns about the FDA's general counsel

> office weighing in on civil suits in support of drug

> companies. The FDA subsequently responded to Hinchey

> in writing, as required. In that response, the FDA

> stated that the Chief Counsel had " worked an average

> of less than 80 hours per year " for Pfizer during

> the three years immediately preceding his tenure at

> FDA. Hinchey later learned Pfizer had paid $415,000

> for the Chief Counsel's services during that period,

> including $356,000 in 2001 alone.

>

> " The agency hid information that belies its

> claim that the Chief Counsel had a 'minimal

> relationship' with Pfizer, " Hinchey added. " This

> intentional deception is not acceptable. "

>

> The Agriculture Appropriation Subcommittee

> writes the spending bill that includes the FDA's

> discretionary funding allocation. As such, it has

> the responsibility to oversee the manner in which

> the agency expends its resources.

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>