Why do the more skeptical among us question if the administration plays politics with terrorism? Take a look at this story in which the acting FDA commissioner cites terrorism as a justification for its opposition to imported prescription drugs:
“Cues from chatter” gathered around the world are raising concerns that terrorists might try to attack the domestic food and drug supply, particularly illegally imported prescription drugs, acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford says.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Crawford said Wednesday that he had been briefed about al-Qaeda plans uncovered during recent arrests and raids, but declined further comment about any possible threats.
“While we must assume that such a threat exists generally, we have no specific information now about any al-Qaeda threats to our food or drug supply,” said Brian Roehrkasse, spokesman for the Homeland Security Department.
Crawford said the possibility of such an attack was the most serious of his concerns about the increase in states and municipalities trying to import drugs from Canada to save money.
. . .
Crawford noted the 1982 Tylenol case, in which packages of the extra-strength variety of the leading painkiller were removed from store shelves on Chicago’s west side, filled with cyanide and returned to stores for purchase. Seven unsuspecting consumers were killed, and the incident prompted widespread adoption of tamperproof packaging.
Notice what’s said here, and what isn’t. First, the sources of the alleged threat: vague, nonspecific “chatter.” That seems to have become a handy standby these days. After all, “terrorists” do “chatter” about many things, don’t they? Planes, trains, trucks, helicopters, boats, scuba diving, buildings, almanacs, chemical plants, and so forth. But as far as I can tell, the government hasn’t attempted to ban any other chatter topics. But this one must be different, because pharmaceutical company profits consumer’s safety is at stake.
Second, the probability of the alleged threat. Could al Qaeda operatives tamper with Canadian drug shipments and insert deadly poisons? Sure. That doesn’t seem like the easiest plot to pull off, but it’s possible. Then again, couldn’t al Qaeda do the same with Canadian fruit shipments? Or domestic food protuction? Or even American prescription drug distribution? Yes, they could.
So why are imported drugs a “particular” threat? Could Crawford be mentioning this because pharmaceutical companies the FDA is against drug importation, while Senator Kerry is out campaigning to allow it? Certainly the administration wouldn’t be using terrorism to scare people into agreement with its policies, would it?