3 ms·

> There are those who want to live the libertarian dream. Surely, there are people that care about the quality of what goes in their body (certainly you and I

> There are those who want to live the libertarian dream. Surely, there are people that care about the quality of what goes in their body (certainly you and I do, at least). Those people would be willing to pay a small price to ensure that what they eat is not poison. Without the FDA, there would probably be numerous entities that evaluate food products and place their mark of approval on those products that pass a rigorous set of tests. Consumers that care about food quality will be willing to spend more to buy food with that mark of approval. If the company approves too many bad products, they lose reputation and go out of business. In fact, there are already organizations that test the quality of products, like Consumer Reports. Personally, I find Amazon reviews to be very helpful when purchasing things, and if I bought my food from Amazon (I hope so one day!) I would read the reviews before buying food I don't know about. > FDA and the supposed agencies entrusted by public to protect the public from poisons in the food have deemed to have failed many times. I agree. Let's get rid of the FDA, we don't need.

ep103 12y ago
On second thought you can ignore my entire post. We already tried that in America. I suggest you read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. It didn't work. -------- ... You would be willing to trust what you put into your body to Consumer Reports? A magazine where, for a small fee, you can buy a positive review? Your argument would be sound if, and only if, we could assume that the public would or could be fully informed as to the validity / accuracy of the various services that would pop up to replace the FDA. Instead what would happen is the various services would simply find it more profitable to pend good reviews most of the time, just enough to be seen as good or slightly better than their peers for their particular advertising demographic. All of their peers, of course, would also take money to buy good reviews, so no single agency, or group of agencies could be trust worthy for any real amount of the time. And while the FDA may fall into some similar traps as the above, the biggest difference would be that the FDA, by being seperate from the marketplace, has only its reputation and fear of its wrath to keep its value and budget. By contrast, the free market agencies that would pop up would have as a primary tool the ability to use advertising and marketing to ensure that even if their service is completely illegitimate, a portion of the marketplace would be convinced of its validity, because customers are not 100% knowledgeable on every matter. And the best part, why would any of these agencies ever spend research money on their products? Sure, enough for the marketing to sound legitimate, perhaps, but not enough to thoroughly test their products, that could only shrink out number of corporate clients. So you can say goodbye to any science that might have come from agencies like the FDA actually conducting investigations. So in short, all you would have created is a group of competing standards, non of which would have their customer's health as a primary concern, all actively advertising potential poisons to consumers, while simultaneously hurting agricultural research.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  You would be willing to trust what you put into your body to Consumer Reports? A magazine where, for a small fee, you can buy a positive review? Do you have a source for the claim (which I'm pretty sure is an extraordinary claim) that one can buy a favorable review in Consumer Reports magazine, published by the nonprofit organization Consumers Union? I did the expected Google search before replying here, and I can't find any evidence for that claim, much less the extraordinary evidence I would need to believe that claim as a long-time (occasional) reader of Consumer Reports.
- jdreaver 12y ago
  I totally disagree. You are holding these hypothetical companies to a standard above that of the FDA. >You would be willing to trust what you put into your body to Consumer Reports? A magazine where, for a small fee, you can buy a positive review? > All of their peers, of course, would also take money to buy good reviews, so no single agency, or group of agencies could be trust worthy for any real amount of the time. Oh, so kind of how corporations spend money to lobby the FDA in their favor? Or large pharma companies bribe FDA regulators to approve only their drugs so they can have a monopoly on the market? > has only its reputation and fear of its wrath to keep its value and budget In what world is a government agency's reputation more important than a real business' bottom line? If the government doesn't do their job, they still take your money, everyone keeps their jobs, and the only recourse you have is to vote another representative in office who might try and change things. With a business, you stop giving them money, and they see the effect immediately. > even if their service is completely illegitimate, a portion of the marketplace would be convinced of its validity, Kind of like how the FDA uses the force of law to convince people that they actually look out for the consumer. > And the best part, why would any of these agencies ever spend research money on their products? If they didn't they would probably endorse bad products and go out of business. Almost all of your criticisms could be applied to the FDA, but you think that they just need "reform." I don't need the government to tell me what to put in my body.
  - ori_b 12y ago
    > If they didn't they would probably endorse bad products and go out of business. Keep in mind that "No immediately noticeable harm" is all they have to go for to stay in business. Long term health of your consumers isn't that important if you want to make some money. I'd far rather have agencies that aren't motivated by making a quick buck keeping track of my food safety. Especially since there is nothing preventing these hypothetical more rigorous companies from existing today, right now, if people don't trust the FDA.
ori_b 12y ago
> Without the FDA, there would probably be numerous entities that evaluate food products and place their mark of approval on those products that pass a rigorous set of tests. And who decides that those tests are rigorous? What prevents me from creating a more lenient, "anything but blatant toxins" goes certification agency that puts it's seal of approval on things? For that matter, what prevents these agencies existing today, in parallel with the FDA? We already have things like fair trade coffee, for example. How many agencies with rotating names do you want to keep up with?
- a_bonobo 12y ago
  This is actually happening in the organic food certification industry in Germany, where a ton of different certificates exist. The EU-own certificate is the most lenient (AFAIK it allows of up 0.9% GM food in feed for animals if there is no alternative), the most strict one is the Demeter certificate, a pretty old one based on the slightly crazy teachings of Rudolf Steiner, complete with cosmic energy. Then there's Biokreis, Bioland, Biopark, Ecoland, Ecovin, and more, all of which have different requirements. No-one can keep up with these.
- jdreaver 12y ago
  The consumer decides how rigorous the tests are by preferring foods with certain tests. Obviously, more rigorous tests will cost more, so the consumer can decide the optimal balance between price and testing. Companies that test too thoroughly, or more than consumers prefer, will drive the cost of food too high. Companies that test too little will not earn the trust of consumers, and health-conscious consumers will avoid those products. > How many agencies with rotating names do you want to keep up with? Well currently we have one (the FDA), and it is awful. I am willing to try a few more.
  - sgift 12y ago
    And if they get cancer a few years later or die then we know that we shouldn't trust the certificate they used. Great!
- nateabele 12y ago
jameshart 12y ago
So your objection is that some federal agency is interfering by telling people what they can and can't call 'food' and sell as such - and your solution is to replace that with a system of marks and branding that helps consumers identify 'good food'. Hmm. So who's going to stop me, in this libertarian utopia of yours, from sticking a 'spam' label with a 'consumer reports approved 100% certified' logo on it on tins of rancid horsemeat and selling those? You've got rid of the FDA, and now we're going to rely on the USPTO to enforce trademark law as a way to assure consumer safety? Or if you're consistent, then you presumably abolished the USPTO as well, and now we're back to hiring our own personal food tasters... As for amazon reviews, I'm reminded of the XKCD argument: an ebay seller can ship a live bobcat in place of the expected product one time in ten and still get 90% positive feedback...

ep103 12y ago

On second thought you can ignore my entire post. We already tried that in America. I suggest you read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. It didn't work. -------- ... You would be willing to trust what you put into your body to Consumer Reports? A magazine where, for a small fee, you can buy a positive review? Your argument would be sound if, and only if, we could assume that the public would or could be fully informed as to the validity / accuracy of the various services that would pop up to replace the FDA. Instead what would happen is the various services would simply find it more profitable to pend good reviews most of the time, just enough to be seen as good or slightly better than their peers for their particular advertising demographic. All of their peers, of course, would also take money to buy good reviews, so no single agency, or group of agencies could be trust worthy for any real amount of the time. And while the FDA may fall into some similar traps as the above, the biggest difference would be that the FDA, by being seperate from the marketplace, has only its reputation and fear of its wrath to keep its value and budget. By contrast, the free market agencies that would pop up would have as a primary tool the ability to use advertising and marketing to ensure that even if their service is completely illegitimate, a portion of the marketplace would be convinced of its validity, because customers are not 100% knowledgeable on every matter. And the best part, why would any of these agencies ever spend research money on their products? Sure, enough for the marketing to sound legitimate, perhaps, but not enough to thoroughly test their products, that could only shrink out number of corporate clients. So you can say goodbye to any science that might have come from agencies like the FDA actually conducting investigations. So in short, all you would have created is a group of competing standards, non of which would have their customer's health as a primary concern, all actively advertising potential poisons to consumers, while simultaneously hurting agricultural research.

tokenadult 12y ago
You would be willing to trust what you put into your body to Consumer Reports? A magazine where, for a small fee, you can buy a positive review? Do you have a source for the claim (which I'm pretty sure is an extraordinary claim) that one can buy a favorable review in Consumer Reports magazine, published by the nonprofit organization Consumers Union? I did the expected Google search before replying here, and I can't find any evidence for that claim, much less the extraordinary evidence I would need to believe that claim as a long-time (occasional) reader of Consumer Reports.
jdreaver 12y ago
I totally disagree. You are holding these hypothetical companies to a standard above that of the FDA. >You would be willing to trust what you put into your body to Consumer Reports? A magazine where, for a small fee, you can buy a positive review? > All of their peers, of course, would also take money to buy good reviews, so no single agency, or group of agencies could be trust worthy for any real amount of the time. Oh, so kind of how corporations spend money to lobby the FDA in their favor? Or large pharma companies bribe FDA regulators to approve only their drugs so they can have a monopoly on the market? > has only its reputation and fear of its wrath to keep its value and budget In what world is a government agency's reputation more important than a real business' bottom line? If the government doesn't do their job, they still take your money, everyone keeps their jobs, and the only recourse you have is to vote another representative in office who might try and change things. With a business, you stop giving them money, and they see the effect immediately. > even if their service is completely illegitimate, a portion of the marketplace would be convinced of its validity, Kind of like how the FDA uses the force of law to convince people that they actually look out for the consumer. > And the best part, why would any of these agencies ever spend research money on their products? If they didn't they would probably endorse bad products and go out of business. Almost all of your criticisms could be applied to the FDA, but you think that they just need "reform." I don't need the government to tell me what to put in my body.
- ori_b 12y ago
  > If they didn't they would probably endorse bad products and go out of business. Keep in mind that "No immediately noticeable harm" is all they have to go for to stay in business. Long term health of your consumers isn't that important if you want to make some money. I'd far rather have agencies that aren't motivated by making a quick buck keeping track of my food safety. Especially since there is nothing preventing these hypothetical more rigorous companies from existing today, right now, if people don't trust the FDA.

ori_b 12y ago

> Without the FDA, there would probably be numerous entities that evaluate food products and place their mark of approval on those products that pass a rigorous set of tests. And who decides that those tests are rigorous? What prevents me from creating a more lenient, "anything but blatant toxins" goes certification agency that puts it's seal of approval on things? For that matter, what prevents these agencies existing today, in parallel with the FDA? We already have things like fair trade coffee, for example. How many agencies with rotating names do you want to keep up with?

a_bonobo 12y ago
This is actually happening in the organic food certification industry in Germany, where a ton of different certificates exist. The EU-own certificate is the most lenient (AFAIK it allows of up 0.9% GM food in feed for animals if there is no alternative), the most strict one is the Demeter certificate, a pretty old one based on the slightly crazy teachings of Rudolf Steiner, complete with cosmic energy. Then there's Biokreis, Bioland, Biopark, Ecoland, Ecovin, and more, all of which have different requirements. No-one can keep up with these.
jdreaver 12y ago
The consumer decides how rigorous the tests are by preferring foods with certain tests. Obviously, more rigorous tests will cost more, so the consumer can decide the optimal balance between price and testing. Companies that test too thoroughly, or more than consumers prefer, will drive the cost of food too high. Companies that test too little will not earn the trust of consumers, and health-conscious consumers will avoid those products. > How many agencies with rotating names do you want to keep up with? Well currently we have one (the FDA), and it is awful. I am willing to try a few more.
- sgift 12y ago
  And if they get cancer a few years later or die then we know that we shouldn't trust the certificate they used. Great!
nateabele 12y ago

jameshart 12y ago

So your objection is that some federal agency is interfering by telling people what they can and can't call 'food' and sell as such - and your solution is to replace that with a system of marks and branding that helps consumers identify 'good food'. Hmm. So who's going to stop me, in this libertarian utopia of yours, from sticking a 'spam' label with a 'consumer reports approved 100% certified' logo on it on tins of rancid horsemeat and selling those? You've got rid of the FDA, and now we're going to rely on the USPTO to enforce trademark law as a way to assure consumer safety? Or if you're consistent, then you presumably abolished the USPTO as well, and now we're back to hiring our own personal food tasters... As for amazon reviews, I'm reminded of the XKCD argument: an ebay seller can ship a live bobcat in place of the expected product one time in ten and still get 90% positive feedback...