CBS Evening News Online Edition - 2004-12-16

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:00] Hello, I'm Dan Rather and welcome to the

[0:02] CBS Evening News online edition. Just

[0:04] ahead, the public may trust the FDA, but

[0:06] how much faith does the FDA's own

[0:09] scientists have in the agency? We'll

[0:12] give you the results of an internal

[0:13] survey. Also, a CBS News investigation

[0:16] found dangerous levels of lead in

[0:18] children's jewelry. But if you think a

[0:20] government recall solved the problem,

[0:22] wait till you see what we uncovered. And

[0:25] how long should workers have to wait for

[0:27] lunch? In one state, it just became a

[0:29] lot longer. We'll report to you why.

[0:32] It's all starting now on the CBS Evening

[0:35] News online edition.

[0:37] There is new reason tonight to be

[0:39] concerned about whether the Food and

[0:40] Drug Administration is protecting you

[0:42] and your family from dangerous drugs.

[0:45] Because people in a very good position

[0:47] to know what the FDA is and is not doing

[0:50] say they have very serious doubts about

[0:52] this. CBS News correspondent Cheryl

[0:54] Atkinson has long been investigating

[0:57] drug safety problems and has tonight's

[0:59] report.

[1:01] >> It's not the kind of news that instills

[1:04] public confidence. FDA scientists lack

[1:06] faith in their own agency's ability to

[1:09] protect the public. That's according to

[1:11] an internal FDA survey. It was conducted

[1:14] two years ago, but only released today

[1:16] by two public interest groups who got it

[1:19] through the Freedom of Information Act.

[1:21] The survey echoes the concerns of Dr.

[1:23] David Graham, the FDA medical officer

[1:25] who recently exposed the AY's safety

[1:28] problems before Congress. Twothirds of

[1:30] the FDA scientists in the survey were

[1:33] not highly confident that the FDA

[1:35] adequately monitor safety of

[1:36] prescription drugs once on the market.

[1:39] One in five said they'd been pressured

[1:41] to approve a drug despite reservations

[1:43] about its safety or other concerns.

[1:46] That's been the gripe of FDA scientists

[1:48] interviewed by CBS News as far back as

[1:50] 2000. Doctors John Gerrigy and Robert

[1:53] Misbon and Leo Lewak said their FDA

[1:56] bosses ignored their concerns about the

[1:58] diabetes drug resolin, which eventually

[2:00] had to be pulled from the market. Time

[2:02] and time again, FDA scientists have

[2:04] proven correct in flagging dangerous

[2:06] drugs, but were punished for doing so.

[2:09] Even threatened with criminal

[2:11] prosecution for allegedly leaking

[2:13] important safety information to the

[2:15] public. It happened to all three Resand

[2:17] doctors.

[2:18] >> And in my own agency, I'm treated like

[2:21] I'm treated worse than a uh a criminal.

[2:24] >> And it happened this year to doctors

[2:26] Andrew Mossholder and David Graham. The

[2:28] FDA opened a criminal investigation into

[2:31] them for supposedly leaking to the

[2:33] public crucial information on the

[2:35] dangers of anti-depressants in children.

[2:38] Several FDA scientists feel so

[2:39] threatened they've sought protection

[2:41] from a private whistleblower group.

[2:43] >> Our group was getting um numerous

[2:46] requests because the scientists were all

[2:49] terrified. They were scared for their

[2:50] careers. And that's the point of those

[2:52] witch hunts, to scare people and to

[2:54] silence. The FDA has always denied any

[2:57] retaliation. The agency says it

[2:59] encourages scientific debate and weighs

[3:02] all the evidence before deciding whether

[3:04] a drug should be on the market. Several

[3:06] reviews are now underway to find out if

[3:08] the FDA has spent too much energy on

[3:11] silencing legitimate concerns and not

[3:13] enough on protecting the public. Cheryl

[3:15] Atinson, CBS News, Washington.

[3:18] From drug safety, our reporting now

[3:20] turns to toy safety in this peak season

[3:23] for toy purchases. CBS News first

[3:26] exposed the safety risk posed by some

[3:28] toy jewelry and it led to a massive

[3:31] recall. Unfortunately, as you're about

[3:33] to see and hear, it did not solve the

[3:36] problem. CBS's Mika Brazinski first

[3:38] broke this story has the follow-up in

[3:40] tonight's Eye on America.

[3:44] >> CBS News first alerted the government to

[3:46] the problem last May.

[3:48] dangerous amounts of lead in vending

[3:50] machine toys just a quarter in a twist

[3:52] away from little hands. The Consumer

[3:55] Product Safety Commission followed up

[3:57] and issued their biggest recall ever.

[4:01] 150 million pieces of jewelry. What

[4:03] assurance do people have that they will

[4:06] not purchase toys that have lead in them

[4:07] from these machines?

[4:08] >> Well, as soon as we get this recall

[4:10] completed, there shouldn't be any.

[4:11] >> There shouldn't be. But there are. And

[4:14] now, 5 months after the recall, many of

[4:17] these hazardous rings, pendants, and

[4:19] bracelets are still being sold.

[4:21] According to a Massachusetts Department

[4:23] of Health investigation,

[4:25] a random sampling found one in four

[4:27] contained enough lead to poison a child

[4:29] who ingested one. The result can be

[4:32] brain damage or even death.

[4:36] >> BUT jewelry from vending machines isn't

[4:38] the only worry. CBS News took its

[4:40] investigation a step further to include

[4:42] jewelry purchased from several national

[4:44] stores and had samples tested. Most of

[4:46] the pieces also contain potentially

[4:49] dangerous levels of lead.

[4:50] >> This would be my choice because we now

[4:53] know.

[4:53] >> But safety is not on the minds of most

[4:55] 10-year-olds like Shannon and her

[4:57] friends Natalie and Kate. They're just

[5:00] thinking the sparklier the better.

[5:02] >> I like shopping and you know I just pick

[5:04] out stuff that I like. I never really

[5:07] thought if it had lead or not.

[5:09] >> What's this piece?

[5:10] >> But who really does? asks lead expert

[5:12] Rick Moss, whose own studies on

[5:14] children's jewelry found nearly half

[5:16] contain potentially hazardous amounts of

[5:18] lead. He says simply handling this

[5:20] jewelry can result in lead poisoning.

[5:23] Lead is not absorbed through the skin,

[5:25] but um when a child handles uh an item

[5:29] like this and then later uh direct or

[5:32] indirect hand-to-mouth contact, they

[5:34] will end up uh ingesting a lot of lead.

[5:36] >> Several of the stores where CBS News

[5:38] purchased jewelry indicated that

[5:40] customer safety was a priority.

[5:42] Responses ranged from removing the

[5:44] jewelry in question at Nordstrom to

[5:46] Sears requiring proof from vendors that

[5:49] their products are lead free. Claire's

[5:51] pointed to a lack of clear federal

[5:53] standards as a problem. The government

[5:55] says it's conducting its own

[5:56] investigation to determine if new

[5:58] regulations are required. Mika Bzinski,

[6:02] CBS News, New York.

[6:04] >> Well, they say there's no free lunch in

[6:06] California. Some workers are afraid

[6:07] there may soon be no lunch at all. The

[6:10] governor is proposing rule changes that

[6:12] would have workers work longer before

[6:14] they're entitled to any lunch break.

[6:16] Business likes that. CBS's Sandra Hughes

[6:19] reports. The fear among workers is it's

[6:22] just the beginning.

[6:23] >> Arnold Schwarzenegger can get pretty

[6:26] pumped up about lunch.

[6:27] >> They go for lunch to tax and this goes

[6:29] on all day long. Tax, tax, tax, tax,

[6:33] tax.

[6:33] >> Even while saving the world in his

[6:35] movie, Schwarzenegger could always pause

[6:37] for a proper meal.

[6:39] >> I was in the area and I thought that you

[6:40] made one day of lunch.

[6:42] >> But as governor, he vetoed a bill

[6:43] mandating the nutritional labeling of

[6:45] school lunches. What he did this week in

[6:48] California has set stomachs to rumbling

[6:50] in more ways than one. He issued an

[6:52] emergency regulation allowing employers

[6:55] to delay lunch breaks until a worker has

[6:57] been on the job for 6 hours.

[6:59] >> Is that too long you think to wait for

[7:01] your lunch? 6 hours?

[7:02] >> Yes.

[7:03] >> Too long for 6 hours? It's a bad idea.

[7:06] >> Schwarzenegger isn't commenting, but

[7:08] many believe he wants to reposition

[7:10] California as a more businessfriendly

[7:12] state.

[7:12] >> It doesn't take the lunch period away.

[7:14] It simply widens the time frame where

[7:16] they can take the lunch period.

[7:17] >> But opponents charge Schwarzenegger

[7:19] wants to eliminate lunch breaks

[7:21] altogether.

[7:22] >> Clearly, this is the first step in

[7:24] taking us to uh the complete uh

[7:27] disintegration of labor laws that are

[7:30] currently in the books that protect

[7:32] workers.

[7:33] >> But what do the experts say? People who

[7:35] eat lunch.

[7:36] >> I cannot imagine doing the types of jobs

[7:39] that I've done in the past without a

[7:40] lunch break.

[7:41] >> I would never do that to my employees. A

[7:43] grouchy employee is not good for your

[7:45] customers.

[7:46] >> Still, federal law does not mandate

[7:48] lunch breaks. Labor experts say the

[7:50] governor's idea just puts California

[7:52] back on track with most other states.

[7:55] And the new lunch policy is just one of

[7:57] the ideas on the governor's plate right

[7:59] now as he tries to fix California's

[8:01] financial problems.

[8:03] >> We have to tighten our belt.

[8:04] >> Maybe skipping lunch will help. Sandra

[8:07] Hughes, CBS News, Los Angeles. More

[8:10] stories are just a click away, but be

[8:12] sure to join me on television for the on

[8:14] air edition of the CBS Evening News. On

[8:16] Friday's broadcast, sales calls, they're

[8:19] annoying enough at home. What if they

[8:21] start coming to your cell phone? It

[8:23] could happen. Find out why in our Friday

[8:26] Consumer Alert for CBSN.com.

[8:29] I'm Dan Rather.