The War on Testosterone

Photographer: Nastco/Getty Images

The Obama administration has already changed American cars, increased the cost of smoking and helped make processed foods less unhealthy. There are wars, real or imagined, on coal, faith and guns, as previously reported. Regulators might as well cut out the middleman and go straight after testosterone.

Cue the Food and Drug Administration's nascent war on testosterone. Members of an FDA advisory committee agreed almost unanimously this week that drug developers should further study the potential cardiovascular risks of testosterone replacement therapies and who should take them.

The number of men taking testosterone supplements stands at 2.3 million, a 43 percent increase since 2010, Bloomberg News reports. Prescribed since the 1950s to chemotherapy patients with testicular damage, testosterone is now taken by men stricken by normal aging and feeling sluggish, irritable, depressed or uninterested in sex.

The FDA panel isn't motivated by the obvious reason -- which is, to emasculate the electorate so that environmental regulation and poverty programs will become more popular and the White House can hand over U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations -- but because widespread testosterone intake has been linked in medical journals to a potentially higher risk of strokes and heart attacks.

Due diligence on a growing health risk seems well within the FDA's job description. Yet it also seems like the Obama administration is realizing some conservative bloggers' fantasies. "War on testosterone" needn't be an abstract metaphor. It could be the ultimate poster child for opponents of any and all regulation. Here is the United States government potentially reaching for manhood itself.

As rhetorically promising as this approach sounds, it also puts testosterone defenders on the defensive. After all, what happened to American virility that men need to take so much extra testosterone in the first place? Certainly the answer given by doctors, the normal aging process, can't be any more reasonable than the ones climate scientists give about carbon dioxide.

This post was updated after the FDA advisory committee meeting.

More by Eric Roston (@eroston on Twitter):

Visit The Grid for the latest about energy, natural resources and global business.