> What if there was questionable science being used to back up the claim that this restaurant causes diabetes? There processes in involving pressure from domai

> What if there was questionable science being used to back up the claim that this restaurant causes diabetes? There processes in involving pressure from domain experts. There are processes within the executive branch to address those. If those fail the legislative branch can update those process. It that fails the legislative branch can intervene with in that specific issue with new legislation. Counter question: What makes you think the supreme court is even vaguely qualified to settle whether science is questionable? > What if a competing restraunt paid off the people in govt to put this company out of business? We have legal procedures for that that don't involve the supreme court. Even the tobacco industry eventually fell to that. > What about other other competing interests besides the FDAs mission? There are processes with in a republic to fix that. > There's a bunch of real life questions here. Yes and they have been solved well enough for ages. > As long as humans are involved it's never as black and white as: this causes X do we can shut it down with no other complications. Literally no-one claims that. But what is claimed that if the consequences are weight turning of coal looks a lot less black then leaving coal running.