Speaker 1: From Bloomberg News and I Heart Radio. It's the Big Take.
Speaker 1: I'm west Caasova. Today, thousands of people claimed they got
Speaker 1: cancer from one of the world's most popular drugs. In November,
Speaker 1: we talked about how a small independent lab in Connecticut
Speaker 1: called vallish Or discovered in that samples of Zantac, the
Speaker 1: widely used heartburn pill, contained the possible carcinogen n d
Speaker 1: m A. At first, the company that made the drug
Speaker 1: at the time it was called Glaxo and now it
Speaker 1: goes by g s K they pushed back against the
Speaker 1: lab's findings, and so did the US Food and Drug Administration,
Speaker 1: But in the FDA pulled Zantac from the market. The
Speaker 1: agency also requested that all pros ryption and over the
Speaker 1: counter drugs containing renittedine, which was the active ingredient in Santech,
Speaker 1: be removed from store shelves. A new version of Zantech
Speaker 1: is back on the market. It's been reformulated and it's
Speaker 1: no longer made with renittedine. It's considered safe to use
Speaker 1: as directed. But now tens of thousands of people who
Speaker 1: took the old version of the drug have sued. They
Speaker 1: claim it gave them cancer, and the alleged the company
Speaker 1: was made aware of potential problems with the drug but
Speaker 1: didn't act quickly enough. My colleagues Anna Edney, Susan Burfield,
Speaker 1: and Jeff Feely dug deep into the claims and counterclaims
Speaker 1: in these lawsuits for Bloomberg Business Week. They're here to
Speaker 1: explain what's at stake and just how complicated it is
Speaker 1: to try to prove a drug made someone sick. Susan,
Speaker 1: can you tell us about Zantec and why it was
Speaker 1: such a big deal. Zantac was first developed to treat
Speaker 1: ulcers at then got approved to treat heartburn, and along
Speaker 1: the way became a billion dollar drug for Glaxo and
Speaker 1: the best selling prescription of all time. So hugely important
Speaker 1: to the company that developed it, pretty important for a
Speaker 1: lot of people, millions of people who were taking it,
Speaker 1: and now, of course, you know, important for people to
Speaker 1: understand what happened during all those years between development and now.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons this drug became so popular, Anna,
Speaker 1: as you're writing the story is that it was one
Speaker 1: of the first drugs that was marketed directly to consumers.
Speaker 1: That's right, Um, we see ads all the time now
Speaker 1: on TV. I think and we think of those and
Speaker 1: and make fun of them from time to time. And
Speaker 1: you know, it wasn't as ubiquitous back then, but Blacks
Speaker 1: made sure that it had an enormous salesforce, combined forces
Speaker 1: with another company, um to try to to make sure
Speaker 1: that they were getting the word out about this drug,
Speaker 1: and even went too far sometimes and we're bromanded by
Speaker 1: the Food and Drug Administration for some of the claims
Speaker 1: that they tried to make. And and all this time
Speaker 1: that this drug was selling in huge amounts of making
Speaker 1: this company a lot of money, there were indications behind
Speaker 1: the scenes that there were potential problems with it. Could
Speaker 1: you describe exactly what was the problem with this drug? Yes, Um.
Speaker 1: These indications that there was a problem with the drug
Speaker 1: started before was even approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Speaker 1: There was some testing that black so did internally that
Speaker 1: showed that under certain conditions Zantalk, which you know, before
Speaker 1: it was approved, was called nitadine because that's the active
Speaker 1: ingredient in it. This testing show that nittadine could form
Speaker 1: a probable carcinogen called n d m A. So how
Speaker 1: did that happen? Where did the n d m A
Speaker 1: come from? So what they found out with Zantok is
Speaker 1: that nittadine itself degrades to form n d m A,
Speaker 1: and this can happen over time while it sits on
Speaker 1: the shelf. This also can happen in heat and humidity.
Speaker 1: So maybe when you're transporting the drug and you're the
Speaker 1: truck might be um have higher temperatures. When they're taking
Speaker 1: it to the drug store. This can be in your bathroom.
Speaker 1: You know, these are pretty normal temperatures where it's able
Speaker 1: to increase the amount of n d m A on
Speaker 1: the drugs, So you don't just have a set amount
Speaker 1: of n d m A, but it rises over time
Speaker 1: and with heat. What they have argued is that it
Speaker 1: would have only been in conditions that just aren't even
Speaker 1: possible to happen within the human body, so that at
Speaker 1: the time the drug is manufactured it can be just fine,
Speaker 1: but over time, sitting in your medicine cabinet can develop
Speaker 1: this probable carcinogen all by itself. That's right. The n
Speaker 1: d m A is formed when the drug degrades. The
Speaker 1: drug has some characteristics that make it susceptible to forming
Speaker 1: n d m A. What happened is Glaxo looked into
Speaker 1: this once the news was out there in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: and they determined that they don't know exactly what is
Speaker 1: making it degrade. They don't think there's any sort of
Speaker 1: regular chemistry process that they can understand of how it
Speaker 1: gets there. Probably one of the simplest ways to think
Speaker 1: about this is just that renitadine as a molecule is unstable,
Speaker 1: and so over time, in heat, in humidity, it degrades
Speaker 1: and that creates problems that we're seeing now. And why
Speaker 1: is and d m A a carcinogy and what does
Speaker 1: it do? And d m A was once used in
Speaker 1: rocket fuel but essentially, you know, it's not even allowed
Speaker 1: to be used in any commercial uses anymore. Essentially is
Speaker 1: only used now to cause cancer in um like lab rats,
Speaker 1: animals that are being used for research. And they call
Speaker 1: it a probable carcinogen because it's never been tested on humans.
Speaker 1: But every single animal that has ever been given in
Speaker 1: d m A, no matter the species, has developed cancer.
Speaker 1: And it's not just a cancer, it's a laundry list
Speaker 1: of cancers, bladder, lung, all sorts of different cancers. Jeff,
Speaker 1: how is it that you know everything that you're describing
Speaker 1: here the deliberations behind the scenes in the company, how
Speaker 1: they responded to various signs that they may have been
Speaker 1: something wrong. Well, we have access to the actual lawsuits
Speaker 1: themselves the complainants. We have access to the pre trial
Speaker 1: depositions done of the Glaxo officials. We have access to
Speaker 1: internal documents that were turned over in discovery in some
Speaker 1: of the lawsuits, so you know, we got a pre
Speaker 1: wide view of what was going on. We also filed
Speaker 1: a freedom of information request with the f d A,
Speaker 1: so we also have the minutes of the meeting where
Speaker 1: a group of outside advisors and f DAS staff we're
Speaker 1: talking with Glaxo scientists. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they suggested that the FDA go ahead and approve the
Speaker 1: drug Susan, What did G s K say when you
Speaker 1: presented them with what you found in your reporting about Zantac.
Speaker 1: We sent G s K a pretty detailed memo UM
Speaker 1: laying out what we had found, what we had seen
Speaker 1: in the court documents, what our own reporting showed. UM.
Speaker 1: They declined to answer any of our specific questions. They
Speaker 1: did give us a statement that said that there is
Speaker 1: no scientific consensus about any consistent or reliable evidence that
Speaker 1: zantac increases the risk for any type of cancer. So
Speaker 1: basically they're saying the science is on their side. They
Speaker 1: also said that they will defend themselves vigorously against all
Speaker 1: claims in any litigation. What is the f d A
Speaker 1: say about approving written nity which they eventually then had
Speaker 1: to pull from the market. Yeah, so the f d
Speaker 1: A gave us a statement that I'll just summarize. Basically,
Speaker 1: what they said is that they evaluate drugs according to
Speaker 1: the quote science of the day, and when there's a problem,
Speaker 1: they'll act quickly to figure out what to do. So
Speaker 1: I guess you know what they're saying is they did
Speaker 1: the best they could. And you write that GSK continues
Speaker 1: to say that renitted being does not cause cancer. Correct
Speaker 1: the way g s K is put it is that
Speaker 1: there are no consistent signals that zantac causes cancer. What
Speaker 1: they mean by that is that there are conflicting studies.
Speaker 1: You know, nobody has given zantac to humans and said
Speaker 1: let's find out if this causes cancer. You can't do
Speaker 1: that ethically, but people have looked back in different epidemiological
Speaker 1: databases and things and tried to figure out if people
Speaker 1: who took santac how to hire risk of cancer. It's
Speaker 1: true there's no consistent signal that it causes cancer, but
Speaker 1: there's also no consistent signal that it doesn't cause cancer.
Speaker 1: And uh, the last time you were on the show,
Speaker 1: you were telling us about the small lab called Valisher
Speaker 1: and it saw a problem with renitaine. Can you just
Speaker 1: remind us what they found? Yeah, vlisher at the time,
Speaker 1: so this was in twenty nineteen. They are an independent lab.
Speaker 1: At the time, they were also a pharmacy and so
Speaker 1: they were testing all the drugs that came through and
Speaker 1: so they happened to be testing some zan talk, some
Speaker 1: renitodine and they saw these super high levels of n
Speaker 1: d m A. They took that information, they ran more tests.
Speaker 1: They kept finding d m A and every single bat
Speaker 1: that they tested, and so they wrote up that information
Speaker 1: and they sent it to the Food and Drug Administration
Speaker 1: as a petition saying you need to look into this, Jeff.
Speaker 1: We should say that the concerns we're talking about here
Speaker 1: are no longer a problem with the current version of
Speaker 1: zante that's on sale now. Is that right? Zan Hack
Speaker 1: did come back on the market, but randditine was taken
Speaker 1: out of it as the active ingredient, and they replaced
Speaker 1: it with another one. So you can get zantac today,
Speaker 1: but it will not have Rand did a team in it.
Speaker 1: After the break, the lawsuits over Zantac get under way, Jeff.
Speaker 1: Has been a few years since the old version of
Speaker 1: Zantac that was made with nitadine was pulled from the market.
Speaker 1: Now a lot of people who took that version of
Speaker 1: the drug claimed they got cancer and they're suing. Can
Speaker 1: you walk us through what's happening. Sure, So there are
Speaker 1: two sets of cases. At last, we have in this country,
Speaker 1: two separate places where you can sue in federal court.
Speaker 1: They were roughly about fifty cases filed and they were
Speaker 1: all consolidated before a judge in Florida. That judge re
Speaker 1: sently found that the science underlying the claims was flawed
Speaker 1: and throw those cases out. The plainiffs, the people lawyers
Speaker 1: for those who took the antach or appealing that decision.
Speaker 1: So fifty people who claimed they were sick sued, their
Speaker 1: cases were put together and they were just thrown out.
Speaker 1: That seems like a fairly sweeping judgment to happen. Early
Speaker 1: on in the case that must have been a little controversial.
Speaker 1: It was and it is. These cases were brought together
Speaker 1: and what's called a multidistrict litigation and MDL, and it's
Speaker 1: where you have a legal issue that gets filed in
Speaker 1: different federal courts around the country. They are consolidated before
Speaker 1: one judge for pre trial information exchanges and test trials.
Speaker 1: One of the pre trial things that are done in
Speaker 1: all these cases is sort of a check on the
Speaker 1: science that underlies them, and they have a hearing and
Speaker 1: the planeffs put forth their experts and they testify how
Speaker 1: they came to the inclusions that randiditine was possible carcinogen.
Speaker 1: So it's up to the judge to decide if that
Speaker 1: science is legitimate enough in the cases can progress. This
Speaker 1: judge in Florida decided that the science was flawed, that
Speaker 1: it was not independent enough, it was tied too closely
Speaker 1: to the litigation to be considered, you know, legitimate independent research,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that these tests that Valisher and others
Speaker 1: had done showed this probably link and that the FDA
Speaker 1: itself ordered the drug pulled from the market. Correct And
Speaker 1: she even noted in her in her decision the irony
Speaker 1: of throwing these cases out when you have a recalled drug,
Speaker 1: but she found that the science just did not stand
Speaker 1: up as far as she's concerned. Now, this is one
Speaker 1: federal judge and her decisions are appealed to annals and
Speaker 1: groups of federal judges who review them. So we'll see
Speaker 1: what the outcome of that is yet. And in that
Speaker 1: statement that g s K gave us UM in response
Speaker 1: to our questions, they talked about that ruling um. They
Speaker 1: noted that it was forty one pages that the judge
Speaker 1: had reviewed thirteen studies and had concluded, as they do,
Speaker 1: that there's no scientific consensus about nitadine and its linked
Speaker 1: to cancer. So this ruling was really great news for
Speaker 1: g SK and they, you know, continue to like to
Speaker 1: refer to it because they feel and hope that it
Speaker 1: should be the last word. Did the f d A
Speaker 1: weigh in on this suit, they've you know, said pretty
Speaker 1: much the same, there's no consistent signal that zantac causes cancer.
Speaker 1: And even since the f d I put that statement out,
Speaker 1: which was originally in June, there's been more studies, more
Speaker 1: inconsistent evidence that it causes cancer or it doesn't. It
Speaker 1: just goes both ways. They can't really take a position
Speaker 1: on this. It's it's not clear. I mean, there's no
Speaker 1: It's not like asbestos, where there's a consensus that you know,
Speaker 1: asbestos is a carcinogen. You know, there's just not a
Speaker 1: consensus yet. But the FDA ordered randentitying off the market
Speaker 1: just to make sure. I mean, you can't if there
Speaker 1: is a possibility that this stuff is causing cancer, you
Speaker 1: don't want it widely distributed. Jeff, you described that when
Speaker 1: federal Casey you said there is another bachelor cases going.
Speaker 1: There's been seventy thousand cases filed. Most of them now
Speaker 1: are in Delaware State Court in Delaware, that is because
Speaker 1: that's where all of these companies US operations are incorporated.
Speaker 1: The deal with these is that the states have a
Speaker 1: different standard for judging the legitimacy of science then the
Speaker 1: federal courts, and so it's more likely that more of
Speaker 1: these cases are going to make it to trial that
Speaker 1: the judge in Delaware. And cases are also fount in California, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: And these are all individual, they haven't been all put together.
Speaker 1: That is correct, as they're all again all individual personal
Speaker 1: injury cases. That's right, Jeff, What are all of these
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of plaintiffs asking for First of all,
Speaker 1: all civil lawsuits are about money, so they're asking for
Speaker 1: damages for their injuries. They want to be reimbursed for
Speaker 1: their medical costs, for the pain and suffering of the
Speaker 1: cancer treatments. You know, God forbid. The person who took
Speaker 1: antack has died, his family wants compensation for the loss
Speaker 1: of that person, loss of his income. So it's always
Speaker 1: about money, Susan, Even if a drug is thought to
Speaker 1: be a possible carcin engine, it's still very difficult, I
Speaker 1: imagine for any individual person to claim that he or
Speaker 1: she got cancer from that drug, as cancer can come
Speaker 1: from a lot of different things. Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: I mean, for all of these cases, and in almost
Speaker 1: every kind of cancer I think, except you know, as
Speaker 1: Jeff said, asbestos tobacco. You know, the cancer develops years
Speaker 1: after you've either been exposed or have been ingesting something
Speaker 1: that's harmful, and to be able to make that connection
Speaker 1: can be complicated. And that's I think what the f
Speaker 1: d A statement is suggesting. You know, about consistent signals,
Speaker 1: and you can say, as Anna did, there's not signals
Speaker 1: that it always does, but there's not signals that it doesn't. Jeff,
Speaker 1: you're writing this story that in other similar pharmaceutical cases,
Speaker 1: the companies have often settled rather than risk having so
Speaker 1: many suits that could wind up with judgments against them.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's likely that the company is going
Speaker 1: to want to settle these cases rather than bring them
Speaker 1: all to trial. I think there's a strong possibility that
Speaker 1: there will be a settlement at some point. It takes
Speaker 1: a while for these things to move into that posture.
Speaker 1: The companies and the planiffs want to test the strengths
Speaker 1: of their claims, and so they have test trials, they
Speaker 1: have early trials. After you have a number of these things,
Speaker 1: and some test trial periods last for twenty cases, others
Speaker 1: for five cases, then the parties come together and try
Speaker 1: to come up with some sort of reasonable accommodation that
Speaker 1: is acceptable to both sides. And it's always about the money.
Speaker 1: And as someone who covers the pharmaceutical companies all the
Speaker 1: time and knows them, well, what are you looking for
Speaker 1: in these cases? What do you think is the most
Speaker 1: relevant thing that we should all be taking away from this?
Speaker 1: The Food and Drug Administration? What about our regulatory body
Speaker 1: that's supposed to be protecting us from dangerous drugs. They
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of resources to look into whether
Speaker 1: it's that's still on the market is safe. I think
Speaker 1: that that leaves things up to the courts to decide.
Speaker 1: It leaves it up to juries to be the last
Speaker 1: line of defense for anyone who may have been harmed
Speaker 1: by a pharmaceutical product. And what I'm looking for here
Speaker 1: is I'm curious to see, you know, if these should
Speaker 1: get to a jury trial, how regular Americans feel about that?
Speaker 1: And Ednie Susan Burfield, Jeff Feely, thanks for joining me today.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thanks so much. No problem when we come back.
Speaker 1: How drugmakers can spot potential hazards in their products. What
Speaker 1: should companies do then to ensure their products are safe
Speaker 1: both of the time they're made and after they've sat
Speaker 1: for months or years in your medicine chest. Dr yap
Speaker 1: Venoma can answer that question. He's the chief science officer
Speaker 1: at u S Pharmacopia, and he's extensively studied the dangers
Speaker 1: of probable carcinogens called nitrosamines. One of those nitros means
Speaker 1: is and d m A, which we've been talking about
Speaker 1: today and is at the center of the legal dispute
Speaker 1: over the old version of zantac. He joins me to
Speaker 1: explain how his organization is setting standards to protect against
Speaker 1: the spread of nitros means and drugs. Yeah, can you
Speaker 1: tell us first, what does US Pharmacopia do. Yes, the
Speaker 1: US Pharmacopeia is an organization that is about two years old,
Speaker 1: and our mission is to improve global health and we
Speaker 1: do this primarily by setting standards for medicines, for biologics,
Speaker 1: dietary supplements, food ingredients, and healthcare and related programs. And yeah,
Speaker 1: can you explain exactly what are nitrosymedes. So nitros means
Speaker 1: are naturally occurring compounds that are present are ubiquitous in
Speaker 1: around US, in drug compounds, also in food and other areas.
Speaker 1: So that's why they're important. And you say they're in nature,
Speaker 1: where are they just naturally found? So nitrosmis can be
Speaker 1: formed by a variety of chemical processes. I won't go
Speaker 1: into the detail, but nitrosmin chemistry is in principle very
Speaker 1: straightforward and can be formed through a variety of processes
Speaker 1: by chemicals reacting. They can form naturally, They conformed during
Speaker 1: chemical synthesis, they can form during certain degredation processes, and
Speaker 1: the reason we're talking about them is because they are
Speaker 1: also possible carcinogens. Yes, so they have been shown to
Speaker 1: be muta genic, so they can cause mutations in your DNA,
Speaker 1: and they are listed as probable or likely carcinogens in
Speaker 1: mammals including humans. Nitrosamins have been found in quite a
Speaker 1: few of the most widely used pharmaceuticals, drugs that a
Speaker 1: lot of us are familiar with. Can you talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about which drugs that they've been found in
Speaker 1: and what's happened since that discovery. So it started with
Speaker 1: the discovery of nitros means in falseharten, which is a
Speaker 1: class of products that are used to treat blood pressure,
Speaker 1: so very widely used, and that led to recalls and
Speaker 1: investigations into the cause of the presence of nitroso means.
Speaker 1: That's what started this about three and a half years ago.
Speaker 1: Since then, nitros means have also been found in other
Speaker 1: very widely used drugs, including drugs to treat diabetes, tuberculosis, infection,
Speaker 1: as well as gastric acids. So it's been found in
Speaker 1: a number of drugs that are used many, many times
Speaker 1: by people all over the world, including the United States. Now,
Speaker 1: how are these nitros means introduced into drugs, because clearly
Speaker 1: manufacturers don't want them there. How do they get into drugs?
Speaker 1: So that's actually one of the concerns. So they are
Speaker 1: and it's now being established that they can be introduced
Speaker 1: into drugs by a variety of reasons. One is through
Speaker 1: the chemical synthesis route that is used to produce the
Speaker 1: drugs to make them. It's also been shown that through degradation,
Speaker 1: in the case of renitatin, which is the anti gastric
Speaker 1: acid medicine, that through degradation and by reacting with itself,
Speaker 1: nitros means can be formed. A third way that it's
Speaker 1: been shown to be introduced through interaction with the drug itself,
Speaker 1: with the packaging and what we call excipients, which are
Speaker 1: substances used to stabilize and manufacture the medicine. So it's
Speaker 1: been shown to occur in drugs through a variety of methods.
Speaker 1: And because of the widespread sort of exposure to the
Speaker 1: public of what happened with renititin, there's more attention being
Speaker 1: paid to nitros means. What are pharmaceutical companies doing, What
Speaker 1: is your organization US Parmacopia doing to try to stop
Speaker 1: the spread of nitrous means in pharmaceuticals. Yeah, there's a
Speaker 1: lot going on. First, maybe it's good to to mention
Speaker 1: that the very fact that these are being found and
Speaker 1: discovered and monitored, while of course reasons for concern, it's
Speaker 1: also a sign that the system is working because we
Speaker 1: need to know what's going on. So that I think
Speaker 1: that's the first thing i'd like to say. So, since
Speaker 1: a couple of years, there's a widespread collaboration between the
Speaker 1: regulatory authorities who are responsible for the safety and the
Speaker 1: quality of medicine, the manufacturers, and other science organizations, including
Speaker 1: the u S Pharmacopeia to try and figure out how
Speaker 1: we can mitigate and how we can reduce and remove
Speaker 1: the presence of nitrose means in drugs. So there are
Speaker 1: three things going on. First is we have to understand
Speaker 1: which drugs are at risk of forming or containing nitrose means.
Speaker 1: That's the very first thing. The sect and piece is
Speaker 1: we need a better understanding of how mutagenic or carcinogenic
Speaker 1: these are. They're not all carcinogenic, they're not all mutigenic,
Speaker 1: so it's very important to have more information as to
Speaker 1: what they do. And then the third piece, very importantly,
Speaker 1: is to discover and to develop methods to actually detect them,
Speaker 1: and to detect them in a way that detect them
Speaker 1: very low quantities to make sure that we have a
Speaker 1: good handle on their presence. So these are the three
Speaker 1: buckets that we're all collaborating on. I would say us
Speaker 1: B is primarily involved in developing the methods and the
Speaker 1: standards that are necessary to analyze and to discover all
Speaker 1: of these different nitroso means. USP participated in a study
Speaker 1: that found potentially forty one percent of active ingredients in
Speaker 1: pharmaceuticals could have nitros means in them. How concerns should
Speaker 1: we be that nitrous means and other potential carcinogens are
Speaker 1: in the drugs that we take. So do not be
Speaker 1: concerned to the point that you should consider stop using
Speaker 1: drugs because of this, because that's very important. That's always
Speaker 1: the guidance before making any decision. Talk to your doctor
Speaker 1: and make the right decision. That's also in line with
Speaker 1: what regulatory authorities are saying. So this is a theoretical
Speaker 1: assessment of looking at all the different chemical structures of
Speaker 1: the drugs on the market and looking for the potential
Speaker 1: that with the emphasis on potential to develop them. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of other factors that go into whether
Speaker 1: or not the actually will form chemical conditions, storage conditions, temperatures,
Speaker 1: all of these things are are important. So I don't
Speaker 1: want any of you to be alarmed by, oh, two
Speaker 1: out of five drugs are now do contain nitros means
Speaker 1: that is not the case. It is part of the
Speaker 1: network of the fabric that we are contributing to really
Speaker 1: help advance the science and knowledge about these compounds. That's
Speaker 1: what it is. One thing I'm really excited about and
Speaker 1: I'd like to share is the nitrosman Exchange that we
Speaker 1: set up about two years ago. So that was literally
Speaker 1: an online community where scientists, regulators, healthcare professional come together
Speaker 1: to discuss and find potential solutions. And in fact, the
Speaker 1: article that you refer to that we discussed was actually
Speaker 1: a direct result of that. So we're proud that we
Speaker 1: are adding our contribution. We of course do not have
Speaker 1: the silver bullet. Nobody has the silver bullet, but it's
Speaker 1: very important that all of us contribute to this and
Speaker 1: that's what we're proud of to do. In addition to
Speaker 1: the work that we're doing on providing physical standards and
Speaker 1: methods to allow many factors and regulators to actually test
Speaker 1: or these compounds in a validated and regulated way. Yeah, Venima,
Speaker 1: thanks for speaking with me today. Thank you, Thanks for
Speaker 1: the opportunity. You can read more reporting from Um and Edne,
Speaker 1: Susan Burfield and Jeff Feely at Bloomberg dot com. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to us here at The Big Take. It's
Speaker 1: a daily podcast from Bloomberg and I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more shows from my Heart Radio, visit the i Heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen, and we'd
Speaker 1: love to hear from you. Email us questions or comments
Speaker 1: to Big Take at Bloomberg dot net. The supervising producer
Speaker 1: of The Big Take is Vicky Bergolina. Our senior producer
Speaker 1: is Katherine Fink. Our producers are Michael Fallero and Moe Barrow,
Speaker 1: with additional production assistance from Sam Gebauer. Raphael I'm Seely
Speaker 1: is our engineer. Our original music was composed by Leo
Speaker 1: Sidrin I'm west Kosova. We'll be back tomorrow with another
Speaker 1: Big Take