4 ms·

So the FDA will lose power to regulate what type of food additives are allowed or not? It makes sense IMO that orgs like the FDA or EPA regulates health safety

So the FDA will lose power to regulate what type of food additives are allowed or not? It makes sense IMO that orgs like the FDA or EPA regulates health safety issues instead of politicians. Does this block that from happening?

workingdog 2y ago
Congress will have to be specific, yes. And we'll be able to vote them out if we don't like what they say.
- MVissers 2y ago
  Sounds like a tremendous step backwards, since congress is directly paid for by mega corporations. Especially concerning complex topics such as EPA and FDA. People (voters) don’t understand these topics and neither do politicians. So how can we expect politicians to regulate these complex areas? Sounds like corporations will just start to own the laws that are being passed even more. Which promotes further consolidation of power and detrimental health effects for the population.
Molitor5901 2y ago
No, congress gave FDA the authority to regulate food additives. This does not mean congress has to list out EVERY SINGLE ADDITIVE, and to think that is very naive in how the legislative and legal process works. Consider this broad hypothetical: The FDA can regulate food additives, what about engine oil additives? If the FDA said no, Valvoline cannot use a specific additive to their motor oil, we would all scratch our heads and say that's not the FDA's job, and they don't have the authority to do that. Under Chevron deference the courts would defer to the FDA and say yes, they have the experts to decide these things, who are we to second-guess the regulatory agency? With this Supreme Court decision, courts will no longer automatically defer to the agencies.
- techostritch 2y ago
  This doesn’t seem like the proper reading of Chevron Deference to me. Chevron deference says that when the delegation is implicit but not explicit then you defer to the agency. So in the FDA example, there is no implicit authority to regulate motor oil.
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  That is a completely incorrect understanding of Chevron. The courts under Chevron would immediately strike down the FDA attempting to regulate motor oil as that's not a reasonable interpretation of the regulatory laws that Congress created. What this ruling changed is exactly that Congress now does need to be exhaustively thorough otherwise the courts decide the matter, not the agencies
  - Molitor5901 2y ago
    [flagged]

workingdog 2y ago

Congress will have to be specific, yes. And we'll be able to vote them out if we don't like what they say.

MVissers 2y ago
Sounds like a tremendous step backwards, since congress is directly paid for by mega corporations. Especially concerning complex topics such as EPA and FDA. People (voters) don’t understand these topics and neither do politicians. So how can we expect politicians to regulate these complex areas? Sounds like corporations will just start to own the laws that are being passed even more. Which promotes further consolidation of power and detrimental health effects for the population.

Molitor5901 2y ago

No, congress gave FDA the authority to regulate food additives. This does not mean congress has to list out EVERY SINGLE ADDITIVE, and to think that is very naive in how the legislative and legal process works. Consider this broad hypothetical: The FDA can regulate food additives, what about engine oil additives? If the FDA said no, Valvoline cannot use a specific additive to their motor oil, we would all scratch our heads and say that's not the FDA's job, and they don't have the authority to do that. Under Chevron deference the courts would defer to the FDA and say yes, they have the experts to decide these things, who are we to second-guess the regulatory agency? With this Supreme Court decision, courts will no longer automatically defer to the agencies.

techostritch 2y ago
This doesn’t seem like the proper reading of Chevron Deference to me. Chevron deference says that when the delegation is implicit but not explicit then you defer to the agency. So in the FDA example, there is no implicit authority to regulate motor oil.
kllrnohj 2y ago
That is a completely incorrect understanding of Chevron. The courts under Chevron would immediately strike down the FDA attempting to regulate motor oil as that's not a reasonable interpretation of the regulatory laws that Congress created. What this ruling changed is exactly that Congress now does need to be exhaustively thorough otherwise the courts decide the matter, not the agencies
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  [flagged]