3 ms·
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. --------
by ep103 13y 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 13y agoYou 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 13y agoI 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 13y 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.
- mindcrime 13y agoYou would be willing to trust what you put into your body to Consumer Reports I'd trust Consumer Reports at least as much as I trust the FDA. It's not like the FDA isn't a "member in good standing" of the agri/pharma/military/prison/industrial complex. Government Agency / Megacorp? Just two sides of the same coin.