5 ms·

Anyone who lived through the AIDS epidemic can tell you that having a regulatory body is not automatically better than none at all. FDA bureaucracy and inaction

Anyone who lived through the AIDS epidemic can tell you that having a regulatory body is not automatically better than none at all. FDA bureaucracy and inaction has killed more Americans than WW2. Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered. Yes, so that the supplements industry can run amok on an unsuspecting public. No really, that's just what we need, especially now.
- garmaine 5y ago
  I called out the gatekeeping job of the FDA specifically. The agency does two things: (1) blacklist food products with deceptive or harmful ingredients or advertising, and (2) whitelist the medications you’re allowed to put in your body, with or without the assistance of a doctor. It’s (2) that is the problem. With informed consent, you should be allowed to put whatever you want in your body without going to jail. It’s your body.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    (2) is not a problem, it is to prevent problems. If you think (2) is a problem you are probably doing something very stupid.
    - garmaine 5y ago
      History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-lesson-history https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.
        garmaine 5y ago
        Then google “fda aids drugs” and pick your favorite source. This is, at this point 30 years removed, a non-political historical issue with objective facts.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        No, there is simply many years of progressive insight. The FDA, like any institution isn't perfect, they got stuff wrong in the past, they'll get stuff wrong in the future. But overall they are a very large net positive, and to argue the opposite is usually accompanied by a mindset that would love a world without all those pesky rules and regulations.
        toolz 5y ago
        It really is disheartening to see such willful political bias. The article in question spends much of its time talking about the "ACT UP" movement, which was a movement headed by LGBQT political activists marching against the FDA, yet here you are brushing it off as if this is some partisan issue because it's an article written by someone with different political bias than yourself.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        You're quite literally hilarious. Before you accuse me of political bias maybe you should have a look to see who you're arguing with. The fact that the article has nicely picked a subject where they can score points off the FDA doesn't mean that all of the FDA, nor its mission of attempting to stop people from harming themselves is wrong per se, just that they got it wrong in that particular instance. To try to twist that into saying that drug regulation is a bad thing and that consenting adults should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies is precisely the kind of idiocy that the CATO institute is very good at. And just this once you're not going to get away with accusing the other side of your argument from having a political bias.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Supplements are already not regulated by the FDA, at least not in the same way as food and pharmaceutical drugs. Basically, manufacturers are responsible for meeting a weak set of regulations for supplements (https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements) and the FDA only gets involved if they sell adulterated products. Nearly all supplements sold in the US have mandatory disclaimer statements (https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/dietary-supplement-labeling-guide-chapter-vi-claims#6-46 https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements-guidance-docume...) to make clear that the FDA has not evaluated their function.
jimmydorry 5y ago
I think the more straight forward upgrade to the status-quo would be funding it to a level where it actually does not have to rely on data that the manufacturers / creators supply. Actually sample testing new and existing products against guidelines as well as being an active participant in trials would go a long way towards moving the FDA from being "paper-pushers" towards a more hands-on regulatory body. They should also have enough expertise in-house to not rely on lobbists and industry experts for new regulations, when these outside forces by nature have competing interests. Straight abolishing any part of it without proposing a substitute doesn't strike me as being in the best interests of society.

jacquesm 5y ago

> Dissolving the FDA, or at least the gatekeeping branches of it, is a third option that ought to be seriously considered. Yes, so that the supplements industry can run amok on an unsuspecting public. No really, that's just what we need, especially now.

garmaine 5y ago
I called out the gatekeeping job of the FDA specifically. The agency does two things: (1) blacklist food products with deceptive or harmful ingredients or advertising, and (2) whitelist the medications you’re allowed to put in your body, with or without the assistance of a doctor. It’s (2) that is the problem. With informed consent, you should be allowed to put whatever you want in your body without going to jail. It’s your body.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  (2) is not a problem, it is to prevent problems. If you think (2) is a problem you are probably doing something very stupid.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    History says otherwise: https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-lesson-history https://www.cato.org/blog/challenging-moral-authority-fda-le...
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Quoting libertarian think tanks in order to further libertarian bollocks viewpoints isn't going to move the needle.
      - garmaine 5y ago
        Then google “fda aids drugs” and pick your favorite source. This is, at this point 30 years removed, a non-political historical issue with objective facts.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        No, there is simply many years of progressive insight. The FDA, like any institution isn't perfect, they got stuff wrong in the past, they'll get stuff wrong in the future. But overall they are a very large net positive, and to argue the opposite is usually accompanied by a mindset that would love a world without all those pesky rules and regulations.
      - toolz 5y ago
        It really is disheartening to see such willful political bias. The article in question spends much of its time talking about the "ACT UP" movement, which was a movement headed by LGBQT political activists marching against the FDA, yet here you are brushing it off as if this is some partisan issue because it's an article written by someone with different political bias than yourself.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        You're quite literally hilarious. Before you accuse me of political bias maybe you should have a look to see who you're arguing with. The fact that the article has nicely picked a subject where they can score points off the FDA doesn't mean that all of the FDA, nor its mission of attempting to stop people from harming themselves is wrong per se, just that they got it wrong in that particular instance. To try to twist that into saying that drug regulation is a bad thing and that consenting adults should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies is precisely the kind of idiocy that the CATO institute is very good at. And just this once you're not going to get away with accusing the other side of your argument from having a political bias.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Supplements are already not regulated by the FDA, at least not in the same way as food and pharmaceutical drugs. Basically, manufacturers are responsible for meeting a weak set of regulations for supplements (https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements) and the FDA only gets involved if they sell adulterated products. Nearly all supplements sold in the US have mandatory disclaimer statements (https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/dietary-supplement-labeling-guide-chapter-vi-claims#6-46 https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements-guidance-docume...) to make clear that the FDA has not evaluated their function.

jimmydorry 5y ago

I think the more straight forward upgrade to the status-quo would be funding it to a level where it actually does not have to rely on data that the manufacturers / creators supply. Actually sample testing new and existing products against guidelines as well as being an active participant in trials would go a long way towards moving the FDA from being "paper-pushers" towards a more hands-on regulatory body. They should also have enough expertise in-house to not rely on lobbists and industry experts for new regulations, when these outside forces by nature have competing interests. Straight abolishing any part of it without proposing a substitute doesn't strike me as being in the best interests of society.