4 ms·
...and we don't just rely on drug makers, for example, to be moral and take responsibility. We have government agencies that _require_ strict testing of their
by rossdavidh 8y ago
...and we don't just rely on drug makers, for example, to be moral and take responsibility. We have government agencies that _require_ strict testing of their safety and effectiveness. If we left it up to the market, we would get inferior results. The problem is, we have no FDA equivalent for tech security.
- minikites 8y agoI agree, this is a core reason we have a government.
- fjsolwmv 8y agoWe have FTC/FCC and EU/GDPR
- acct1771 8y agoThat's a great point made with a pretty suspect example. FDA very subject to regulatory capture.
- alex_anglin 8y agoRegulatory capture is certainly an issue, but it doesn't mean that the FDA isn't better than not having a regulatory regime at all.
- Spooky23 8y agoThe cost of the FDA is that the process is slower. The benefit is that medicine is effective and measurably safe. It’s obviously necessary, and the supplement industry shows why.
- rossdavidh 8y agoRegulatory capture is certainly an important problem, but the pre-FDA record suggests strongly that the FDA we have is much better than not having one. But I would certainly not suggest that there is not a real problem with regulatory capture, just that the current situation in tech security (no FDA equivalent) is worse.