2 ms·

I know there's a lot to be said about $POLITICIANS and $POLICY generally, but somehow I don't think there's any big-oil type conspiracy to prevent the FDA from

I know there's a lot to be said about $POLITICIANS and $POLICY generally, but somehow I don't think there's any big-oil type conspiracy to prevent the FDA from checking for heavy metals in spices, specifically. Did they check for them in the more regulation-on environment of the Clinton administration? The Obama administration? Might there be more nuance than "regulations on!" "regulations off!?"

smolder 5y ago
If the FDA had a classification of "We'd Prefer You Thought This Was Safe", it would be a more accurate description for a lot of their approvals. They are ostensibly protecting consumers, but they also protect manufacturers by engendering [sometimes misplaced] confidence. It's reasonable to assume that corruption plays into this when it's sufficiently incentivized.
quadrifoliate 5y ago
> ...somehow I don't think there's any big-oil type conspiracy to prevent the FDA from checking for heavy metals in spices, specifically Of course there isn't, but that's also not an argument I think I made. I was indicating the more general trend towards de-regulation in the majority of the US, which likely affects all government agencies, including the FDA and the FCC (see, for example, the unchecked monopolies of most ISPs). I think of it as a chilling effect by appointment. If you put the oil lobbyists in charge of environmental protection and a lawyer from Verizon in charge of the FCC, it seems to me that, for instance, increased FDA funding for anything, (including food safety) is not going to be the top priority of the Government. Now, it's possible you're asserting that moves like putting oil and coal lobbyists in charge of environmental protection are somehow unique and do not indicate a general skepticism towards regulation. I suppose there is no way to emphatically demonstrate that without waiting for a few decades, but would refer you to various surveys about political attitudes towards governmental regulation of companies.

smolder 5y ago

If the FDA had a classification of "We'd Prefer You Thought This Was Safe", it would be a more accurate description for a lot of their approvals. They are ostensibly protecting consumers, but they also protect manufacturers by engendering [sometimes misplaced] confidence. It's reasonable to assume that corruption plays into this when it's sufficiently incentivized.

quadrifoliate 5y ago

> ...somehow I don't think there's any big-oil type conspiracy to prevent the FDA from checking for heavy metals in spices, specifically Of course there isn't, but that's also not an argument I think I made. I was indicating the more general trend towards de-regulation in the majority of the US, which likely affects all government agencies, including the FDA and the FCC (see, for example, the unchecked monopolies of most ISPs). I think of it as a chilling effect by appointment. If you put the oil lobbyists in charge of environmental protection and a lawyer from Verizon in charge of the FCC, it seems to me that, for instance, increased FDA funding for anything, (including food safety) is not going to be the top priority of the Government. Now, it's possible you're asserting that moves like putting oil and coal lobbyists in charge of environmental protection are somehow unique and do not indicate a general skepticism towards regulation. I suppose there is no way to emphatically demonstrate that without waiting for a few decades, but would refer you to various surveys about political attitudes towards governmental regulation of companies.