4 ms·
It is true that we cannot know if the product causes NEC without statistics. But the point is that _even if no one had died_, SimplyThick had not been develope
by JacksonGariety 7y ago
It is true that we cannot know if the product causes NEC without statistics.
But the point is that _even if no one had died_, SimplyThick had not been developed and manufactured with health and safety in mind.
The incident illustrates the dangers of reckless innovation and experimentation.
- dmix 7y agoDid you miss the part where it dramatically improved the quality of life of tens of thousands of people who were in the intended consumers of the product (post-stroke and old age)? There's a significant long term cost to killing off innovation in the name of some idealized pursuit of perfection. The fact poor factory production quality hurt a small subset of children it wasn't originally 'invented' for is not a failure of 'reckless innovation and experimentation' (whatever that means). Xanthan gum was tested by the FDA and continues to be consumed in countless other products today, that process will always be imperfect. It's very questionable any sort of hyper-safe approach to regulation and a general hostility towards innovation/experimentation would have even caught the risks of poor factory conditions... or whether they would have even tested it on a subset of premature babies at risk for NEC.
- scarface74 7y agoThe article even says that they went to all of the experts, followed FDA requirements to the letter and that they had no way of knowing that it may cause a danger to infants. The development process was sound. I fault them for not doing do oversight during manufacturing.