6 ms·
So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you
by davidhyde 7y ago
So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
- sjg007 7y agoThe FDA doesn't regulate cosmetics...
- ceejayoz 7y agoSure they do. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/fda-authority-over-cosmetics-how-cosmetics-are-not-fda-approved-are-fda-regulated https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/fda... https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-compliance-enforcement/inspection-cosmetics https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-compliance-enforceme... > Section 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to conduct inspections of cosmetic firms at reasonable times, in a reasonable manner, and without prior notice in order to assure compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, to determine whether cosmetics are safe and properly labeled, and to identify possible health risks and other violations of the law.
- dboreham 7y agoThe thing they don't regulate is vitamins, supplements etc. Interestingly those things can be just as potent as "real drugs", but they aren't regulated simply because the seller opted to not say they are drugs, rather on any theory that they're not actually drugs.
- markdown 7y agoNot to worry, those are regulated by the banks, who won't provide financial services to any business selling anything that they think mimics illegal drugs.
- tehwebguy 7y agoThey are talking about "supplements"
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago* who will stop providing financial services (because the make money off those, duh) once cornered by a higher authority. FTFY
- dpau 7y agoJ&J's actions are also very similar to those of the tobacco industry and oil companies- the dangers of their product were well-known within the industry and yet they took steps to obscure the issue and limit regulation rather than address the problem. (In fact I just did a Google search for "hazardous talc" and the first result is an ad: "Johnson & Johnson | Get the Facts About Talc" https://www.factsabouttalc.com https://www.factsabouttalc.com) In the ceramics industry the dangers of talc are well known, in recent years well-known sources of talc have been closed down due to asbestos contamination. In addition talc-silicosis is a very real concern and we never touch raw talc without an OSHA-approved respirator and dust extraction system. Article from 1979 about the R. T. Vanderbilt Company's fight to keep talc mines open despite the presence of tremolite: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/03/archives/new-yorks-talc-miners-a-dual-fight-for-survival-nowhere-else-to-go.html https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/03/archives/new-yorks-talc-m...
- girvo 7y agoIn a different corner of information: pulmonary talcosis is a known danger for intravenous drug users who shoot up pills. We’ve known about that for decades, too
- dzhiurgis 7y agoIs the risk there for people who sniff them as well? I have some friends who like their adder too much
- girvo 7y agoIt’s theorised that yes, there is, but I haven’t seen the same papers/case studies that prove it. But: consider that talc dust inhalation is known to cause talcosis, then consider that snorting crushed up tablets with talc in them goes straight into your mucous membranes and lungs, I personally would not be at all surprised.
- dzhiurgis 7y agoHow does medical industry avoid asbestos contamination in talc then? Or is overlooked just as in cosmetics? Kinda doubt it.
- LanceH 7y agoDon't leave out the step where you hire a bunch of politicians/friends/relatives to your board and send some of your execs to work as regulators.
- chadmeister 7y agoYup, looks like a classic case of regulatory capture.
- dboreham 7y agoSo common that Economists have invented a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- chcknsammich 7y agoThe real root of the problem is probably that the FDA is also a monopoly.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- asdf21 7y agoAs are all government programs -- agreed, that is the issue.
- vkou 7y agoDo you seriously think that we'd have fewer of these issues if companies could shop around for the cheapest & most lax regulator? If you believe that, please explain to me why the BBB exists, and what positive social purpose it serves. It is the poster child for a toothless opt-in 'regulator', and it is worse than useless at dealing with malfeasance by its members. (But it's pretty good at collecting membership dues.)
- Consultant32452 7y agoImagine if absolutely nothing changed about the BBB except that I forced you to fund them against your will.
- JamisonM 7y agoWhy would you imagine that? All the work involved in capturing the FDA demonstrates that the FDA is not a "mandatory BBB", if they really had no teeth there would be no need to devote all these resources to dupe/intimidate/capture them.
- Consultant32452 7y agoOf course the FDA has teeth. But the teeth are only sharp enough to hurt the little fish. The big fish keep on swimming while the FDA takes out the little fish, just like the big fish like it. The FDA and the big fish are partners. Notice how nobody in this situation is partners with you and me.
- asdf21 7y agoRight, so government cannot be trusted to enforce consumer protections and it needs to be privatized.
- jostmey 7y agoPretty much true given my knowledge. It is probably time to disband the FDA. That's the easy part. But the FDA serves a vital purpose and a new agency would be required to replace it
- taneq 7y ago> So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. Possibly they're stricter on small companies because if they mess up, you can't fix the issue with a big class-action lawsuit? If Johnson & Johnson mess up, they're big enough to be able to compensate consumers directly. Not saying it's an ideal solution but if I were a budget-constrained federal agency trying to minimize harm with limited resources I could see myself making a similar call.
- nicoburns 7y agoNot everything is about money. And moral lapses don't (or shouldn't) disappear just because you pay for them with money. Regulation should protect people from everyone.
- taneq 7y agoI totally agree. I was just trying to put myself in their place and come up with an interpretation of why they might, in good faith, behave this way.
- guelo 7y agoThe solution to this type of problem is not to weaken or get rid of these cops. We should give them more resources, more power, more independence to resist political pressures, more ethics rules and internal affairs, more respect and leeway to the career professionals to attract the best and the brightest. This is a frustration to me because neither the left or the right seem to fight for better government, more just, more fair. The right have this childish dream that no government will magically work, which happens to dovetail into what criminal corporations want. The left protect the government unions and allow them to become dysfunctional.
- Ericson2314 7y agoI was with you until you blamed the government unions. That is emphatically not where regulatory happens, even though those unions themselves (in comparison to their beleguared private sector counterparts) are arguably an instance of regulatory capture.
- chiefalchemist 7y agoThe list of untested yet still "approved" chemicals / additives is endless. The ability to pin point the guilt of causing a disease on any one of them is nearly impossible.
- Cougher 7y agoVery true. Companies are trusted to perform their own testing which is, at best, only testing for superficial, short-term effects. And substances are tested singly, despite the fact that we know that their effects are often multiplied by orders of magnitude. Look at the "inert ingredients" in pesticides for example.