2 ms·

I get the avoision factor, but what do we have to go on to know the safety of the other country’s products if they’re more loosely regulated? It’s not like the

I get the avoision factor, but what do we have to go on to know the safety of the other country’s products if they’re more loosely regulated? It’s not like the FDA requires studies to be done in USA, so it’s hard(er) to argue that this is a case of regulatory capture. It sounds like the evidence base for the non-FDA products isn’t there beyond “people in blank have used it and we can confirm they didn’t immediately die but otherwise we don’t really know”. Meanwhile, I can’t just import a European car and register it, even though it has met almost entirely overlapping safety standards.

bobthepanda 4y ago
The difference is that we certainly have approved new car safety features in the US in the last 22 years, not all of which were domestic in origin. How many regulatory categories can we speak of that have not allowed any new entries in that time frame? In that time frame some of these ingredients like bemotrizinol have been available to hundreds of millions of people. If there was a risk of something like thalidomide babies here, it would’ve been observable by now.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Thalidomide was fairly straightforward because missing limbs are unusual and immediately obvious, among other issues with those exposed. History of usage doesn’t make something safer than the tested options. And a lot of potential issues aren’t immediately obvious.