There was no single event that led to the creation of the FDA as we know it, but there was an interesting string of medical disasters during the first half of t

There was no single event that led to the creation of the FDA as we know it, but there was an interesting string of medical disasters during the first half of the 20th century that caused the scope of the laws and agency to creep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#Early_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fda#Early_history An especially fascinating one was Elixir Sulfanilamide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide For medicine, the incentives are all wrong for laissez-faire to prevent disaster. If you create a compound that you think will be useful in some way, it only takes a few tests to convince yourself and others that it's worth using. If it works safely in the general population, you're a hero and a millionaire; if you waste time on additional testing, your competition will beat you; and if your testing turns up some ambiguous data, you're stuck with the dilemma of whether to go forward with a product that has risks that the benefits may or may not outweigh. I've worked on medical devices; this last situation comes up constantly. Without detailed specifications that put the burden on the producers to prove safety and efficacy, what the producer thinks is due diligence is generally woefully inadequate. (No comment on the state of agriculture back then, but these days the line between food and drug is getting blurry.)