4 ms·

> You don't go out, do what you want, and then be surprised when you get shut-down. That's how it _ought_ to be in a free republic.

by wtbob 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago
Sure. While we're at it, let's get rid of meat inspections too.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  Fun fact: none of the meat purchased by mcdonalds for their burgers is FDA approved. :)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - moioci 13y ago
    It is USDA-inspected, however.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      Many people don't know the difference. That's what makes it the shocking truth about McDonald's you need to learn!
  - CanSpice 13y ago
    It's not TSA approved either. Or NSA. Or EPA. None of these agencies, FDA included, have anything to do with meat inspections. Meat inspections are under the purview of the USDA thanks to the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    Meat is regarded as an agricultural product until it is actually included in a food product or is packaged for sale as a food product. Agricultural products are regulated by the USDA, foodstuffs are regulated by the FDA.
  - euroclydon 13y ago
    USDA inspections are primarily visual. However, fast food chains use bacterial counts, which are believed to be more effective, to pass/fail batches of meat they receive.
smacktoward 13y ago
Not all "freedoms" are alike. As the saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. And your freedom to make unproven medical claims for a product you're selling ends at my freedom to buy medical products with confidence that they are safe and will do what they claim to do.
- tolmasky 13y ago
  Without getting into a semantics argument about whether your example is even really a freedom or not (just like I could say "clearly my freedom to read minds isn't respected because it doesn't even work!!!!"), I think there is a huge, ridiculous, and obvious difference between physically assaulting someone and giving you data about your genome. I am an adult, I paid for 23andme with my money, and I understand the limitations of their data. If I'm worried about something in particular I'll go to the doctor, since they spell it out all over the place that none of this stuff is final (not to mention the fact that the only thing they even ever tell you is like "1% elevated risk"). I don't need mama government stepping in and making sure I'm not being mislead (which is hilarious because it is on the other hand 100% legal to be a fortune teller and tell someone not to worry since that pesky cancer won't be terminal according to these tarot cards).
  - pflats 13y ago
    The FDA is reacting to the marketing/advertising, not the product itself. If the fortune teller was promoting himself as "Bob the Medical Psychic" who can predict whether your cancer will be terminal, then that's a different story. You're not allowed to make medical claims in advertisements that you can't back up. Cheerios famously got into trouble for claiming it's heart-healthy or some such.
  - exelius 13y ago
    Yeah, but you have to think of the precedent: if 23andme doesn't have to provide proof that their results are accurate, there's nothing stopping me from starting a company that reads the lines on your palm and tells you if you will develop cancer. Regardless of the number of disclaimers they attach, people will use it to make medical decisions, and 23andme was aggressively advertising capabilities they had not proven. There is (and should be) a higher standard of proof for medical services/devices/etc. The FDA was started because companies were making medicines that either didn't work or weren't safe and people were relying on them. Consumers lost faith in the health care industry, so we have a much higher standard of care. I understand that it's expensive, difficult and time consuming to fulfill this higher burden of proof, but the alternative applied across the entire market really just shifts those costs to the consumer while degrading confidence in the market for medical services overall.
001sky 13y ago
Medical false-claims have a higher standard of due care for good reasons. Not only are there issues with potential non-reversal, but the search and diligence costs are un-economic for individuals to verify acting in isolation. That's doesn't justify anyone's bad behaviour, but dismissing the problem out of hand is not really helpful.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

> You don't go out, do what you want, and then be surprised when you get shut-down. That's how it _ought_ to be in a free republic.

by wtbob 13y ago

> You don't go out, do what you want, and then be surprised when you get shut-down. That's how it _ought_ to be in a free republic.

tptacek 13y ago

Sure. While we're at it, let's get rid of meat inspections too.

tedunangst 13y ago
Fun fact: none of the meat purchased by mcdonalds for their burgers is FDA approved. :)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- moioci 13y ago
  It is USDA-inspected, however.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    Many people don't know the difference. That's what makes it the shocking truth about McDonald's you need to learn!
- CanSpice 13y ago
  It's not TSA approved either. Or NSA. Or EPA. None of these agencies, FDA included, have anything to do with meat inspections. Meat inspections are under the purview of the USDA thanks to the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  Meat is regarded as an agricultural product until it is actually included in a food product or is packaged for sale as a food product. Agricultural products are regulated by the USDA, foodstuffs are regulated by the FDA.
- euroclydon 13y ago
  USDA inspections are primarily visual. However, fast food chains use bacterial counts, which are believed to be more effective, to pass/fail batches of meat they receive.

smacktoward 13y ago

Not all "freedoms" are alike. As the saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. And your freedom to make unproven medical claims for a product you're selling ends at my freedom to buy medical products with confidence that they are safe and will do what they claim to do.

tolmasky 13y ago
Without getting into a semantics argument about whether your example is even really a freedom or not (just like I could say "clearly my freedom to read minds isn't respected because it doesn't even work!!!!"), I think there is a huge, ridiculous, and obvious difference between physically assaulting someone and giving you data about your genome. I am an adult, I paid for 23andme with my money, and I understand the limitations of their data. If I'm worried about something in particular I'll go to the doctor, since they spell it out all over the place that none of this stuff is final (not to mention the fact that the only thing they even ever tell you is like "1% elevated risk"). I don't need mama government stepping in and making sure I'm not being mislead (which is hilarious because it is on the other hand 100% legal to be a fortune teller and tell someone not to worry since that pesky cancer won't be terminal according to these tarot cards).
- pflats 13y ago
  The FDA is reacting to the marketing/advertising, not the product itself. If the fortune teller was promoting himself as "Bob the Medical Psychic" who can predict whether your cancer will be terminal, then that's a different story. You're not allowed to make medical claims in advertisements that you can't back up. Cheerios famously got into trouble for claiming it's heart-healthy or some such.
- exelius 13y ago
  Yeah, but you have to think of the precedent: if 23andme doesn't have to provide proof that their results are accurate, there's nothing stopping me from starting a company that reads the lines on your palm and tells you if you will develop cancer. Regardless of the number of disclaimers they attach, people will use it to make medical decisions, and 23andme was aggressively advertising capabilities they had not proven. There is (and should be) a higher standard of proof for medical services/devices/etc. The FDA was started because companies were making medicines that either didn't work or weren't safe and people were relying on them. Consumers lost faith in the health care industry, so we have a much higher standard of care. I understand that it's expensive, difficult and time consuming to fulfill this higher burden of proof, but the alternative applied across the entire market really just shifts those costs to the consumer while degrading confidence in the market for medical services overall.

001sky 13y ago

Medical false-claims have a higher standard of due care for good reasons. Not only are there issues with potential non-reversal, but the search and diligence costs are un-economic for individuals to verify acting in isolation. That's doesn't justify anyone's bad behaviour, but dismissing the problem out of hand is not really helpful.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]