The most frightening part here is that at the end of the day, criticisms of this kind have historically led to increases in FDA budgets, because the more the ag

The most frightening part here is that at the end of the day, criticisms of this kind have historically led to increases in FDA budgets, because the more the agency fails, the more people cry that it is underfunded in its crucial mission to protect public health. See for example the "Alliance for a Stronger FDA", in which many drug companies lobby for increased FDA funding, both to curry favor with current officials and to exclude competitors. http://strengthenfda.org/ http://strengthenfda.org/ http://cherryhill.legalexaminer.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/fda-is-understaffed-underfunded-and-cant-handle-food-inspections.aspx?googleid=255906 http://cherryhill.legalexaminer.com/fda-and-prescription-dru... http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fda-funding-boosted-through-lobbying-effort/2011/11/23/gIQAXHQ6CO_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fda-funding-b... As these links show, more failure means more funding, but sometimes also shakeup which reduces the upward arc of a bureaucrat's career and limits them to "just" lifetime employment with tenure (it's called 'career status' and federal employees get it after three years). So, if this is how they react to cries that the agency is underfunded, can you imagine how the FDA would react to criticism that might result in decreased funding?