11 ms·

There's a misleading conflation of at least 2 issues here: If manufacturers are releasing product with substantially different contents than the label, then th

by Empact 14y ago

There's a misleading conflation of at least 2 issues here: If manufacturers are releasing product with substantially different contents than the label, then they are guilty of defrauding their customers. This is a crime which should be expensive for the guilty company. But giving the FDA control over what supplements are allowed in the market is a travesty waiting to happen. The FDA works dramatically slower than decentralized market action, and works under incentives favoring control over free choice. Sites like http://examine.com/ http://examine.com/ are working to bring science and facts to the supplement market, and I expect a lot more progress in this area over the next few years.

rayiner 14y ago
> The FDA works dramatically slower than decentralized market action, and works under incentives favoring control over free choice. The FDA was a response to massive market failure.
derleth 14y ago
> If manufacturers are releasing product with substantially different contents than the label, then they are guilty of defrauding their customers. This is a crime which should be expensive for the guilty company. I think it should result in prison terms for the principles, but massive fines and punitive damages are a start, at least. > But giving the FDA control over what supplements are allowed in the market is a travesty waiting to happen. How? What can be worse than pills being sold with the wrong things in them, with unknown trash in them, and pills being made in conditions that would get a McDonald's shut down? It's like going back to the pre-FDA era of snake oil. > The FDA works dramatically slower than decentralized market action, and works under incentives favoring control over free choice. Free choice only works if everyone knows what's on offer. That means people would somehow have to know what manufacturers are trustworthy. We've seen from the evidence at hand, both in this century, the previous one, and the ones prior to that, that this does not work in reality. It is utopian. It is a fantasy. You cannot expect people to out-FDA the FDA. Theory must give way to evidence, and we have evidence in this matter.
- ars 14y ago
  > How? What can be worse than pills being sold with the wrong things in them, with unknown trash in them, and pills being made in conditions that would get a McDonald's shut down? What does that have to do with pills? If people are making any kind of food at all that is filled with trash then the FDA should stop them, but it has nothing at all to do with them being supplements.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > What does that have to do with pills? We're discussing supplements, which are usually sold in pill form. > If people are making any kind of food at all that is filled with trash then the FDA should stop them, but it has nothing at all to do with them being supplements. Should, yes. However, if you read the article, you'll see a very bad law that prevents the FDA from doing so in the case of supplements. > Snake oil at least was (usually) what it said on the bottle. Really? I don't know one way or the other for sure about historical snake oil: My usage there was 'snake oil' as a synonym for 'an untested product guaranteed to cure anything and everything, sold by a con artist'.
    - ars 14y ago
      > However, if you read the article, you'll see a very bad law that prevents the FDA from doing so in the case of supplements. I did read the article, and that isn't true. If the pill does not have what it says on the bottle then they can easily shut them down. > Really? I don't know one way or the other for sure about historical snake oil: My usage there was 'snake oil' as a synonym for 'an untested product guaranteed to cure anything and everything, sold by a con artist'. I realized that right after I said it, so I edited out that sentence. But to reply to you: If the product has what it says it has, then the FDA has no business regulating it. They should regulate fraud - a product that does not have the listed ingredients for example. Or a false claim. But they have no business telling people that they can not buy/eat this or that plant.
      - derleth 14y ago
wissler 14y ago
You're exactly right of course. It's amazing how many people have bought into the myth that prior restraint leads to better overall outcomes.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Absolutely! It's so unintuitive that preventing people from doing things you don't want might get them to not do those things, I totally fail to understand why people buy into that "myth!"
  - wissler 14y ago
    By your sarcasm I gather that you're completely unfamiliar with the concept "unintended consequences".

by Empact 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

> The FDA works dramatically slower than decentralized market action, and works under incentives favoring control over free choice. The FDA was a response to massive market failure.

derleth 14y ago

> If manufacturers are releasing product with substantially different contents than the label, then they are guilty of defrauding their customers. This is a crime which should be expensive for the guilty company. I think it should result in prison terms for the principles, but massive fines and punitive damages are a start, at least. > But giving the FDA control over what supplements are allowed in the market is a travesty waiting to happen. How? What can be worse than pills being sold with the wrong things in them, with unknown trash in them, and pills being made in conditions that would get a McDonald's shut down? It's like going back to the pre-FDA era of snake oil. > The FDA works dramatically slower than decentralized market action, and works under incentives favoring control over free choice. Free choice only works if everyone knows what's on offer. That means people would somehow have to know what manufacturers are trustworthy. We've seen from the evidence at hand, both in this century, the previous one, and the ones prior to that, that this does not work in reality. It is utopian. It is a fantasy. You cannot expect people to out-FDA the FDA. Theory must give way to evidence, and we have evidence in this matter.

ars 14y ago
> How? What can be worse than pills being sold with the wrong things in them, with unknown trash in them, and pills being made in conditions that would get a McDonald's shut down? What does that have to do with pills? If people are making any kind of food at all that is filled with trash then the FDA should stop them, but it has nothing at all to do with them being supplements.
- derleth 14y ago
  > What does that have to do with pills? We're discussing supplements, which are usually sold in pill form. > If people are making any kind of food at all that is filled with trash then the FDA should stop them, but it has nothing at all to do with them being supplements. Should, yes. However, if you read the article, you'll see a very bad law that prevents the FDA from doing so in the case of supplements. > Snake oil at least was (usually) what it said on the bottle. Really? I don't know one way or the other for sure about historical snake oil: My usage there was 'snake oil' as a synonym for 'an untested product guaranteed to cure anything and everything, sold by a con artist'.
  - ars 14y ago
    > However, if you read the article, you'll see a very bad law that prevents the FDA from doing so in the case of supplements. I did read the article, and that isn't true. If the pill does not have what it says on the bottle then they can easily shut them down. > Really? I don't know one way or the other for sure about historical snake oil: My usage there was 'snake oil' as a synonym for 'an untested product guaranteed to cure anything and everything, sold by a con artist'. I realized that right after I said it, so I edited out that sentence. But to reply to you: If the product has what it says it has, then the FDA has no business regulating it. They should regulate fraud - a product that does not have the listed ingredients for example. Or a false claim. But they have no business telling people that they can not buy/eat this or that plant.
    - derleth 14y ago

wissler 14y ago

You're exactly right of course. It's amazing how many people have bought into the myth that prior restraint leads to better overall outcomes.

rayiner 14y ago
Absolutely! It's so unintuitive that preventing people from doing things you don't want might get them to not do those things, I totally fail to understand why people buy into that "myth!"
- wissler 14y ago
  By your sarcasm I gather that you're completely unfamiliar with the concept "unintended consequences".