4 ms·

> 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

by ori_b 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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 13y ago
"But, but, but... who will build the roads!?" > And who decides that those tests are rigorous? Really? Who decides those things now? That's the whole point: look at all the disasters the FDA has approved (and the high barrier to entering the marketplace they create, which kills an unknowable number of things that could be tremendously beneficial). People have to make decisions with the best information that they have. At least with a commercial entity, you can see where the interests are aligned, instead of operating under the delusion that benevolent agents of the state are out there working on your behalf. Here's a parallel example: the FDIC exists to insure bank deposit holders up to $100k (formerly $250k, but oh well). Now, with the FDIC, you have every incentive to ignore your bank and assume that your deposits are safe. What about without the FDIC? Maybe you're more concerned with how your bank invests your money. Maybe you ask to see their balance sheet. Maybe you see how disastrously over-leveraged they are and take your money elsewhere. If that happens enough times, look at all the financial crisis you SUDDENLY DON'T HAVE. That's a pretty over-simplified example, so here's a more direct one: there's a program operated by FEMA called the National Flood Insurance Program. The purpose is to provide affordable flood insurance for houses which the market has decided are too flood-prone to be insured, but for a very expensive policy, if at all. Just consider that for a second: FEMA is literally reinforcing their own existence by incentivizing people to live in places where floods might destroy their homes and kill them. I don't think it gets any more perverse than that (though realistically it probably does). The state can't help you. All it can do is provide concentrated centers of control to attract those with power and influence, and all you get in return is a false sense of security. You're literally walking into a trap and turning your brain off.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  "Here's a parallel example: the FDIC exists to insure bank deposit holders up to $100k (formerly $250k, but oh well). Now, with the FDIC, you have every incentive to ignore your bank and assume that your deposits are safe. What about without the FDIC? Maybe you're more concerned with how your bank invests your money. Maybe you ask to see their balance sheet. Maybe you see how disastrously over-leveraged they are and take your money elsewhere. If that happens enough times, look at all the financial crisis you SUDDENLY DON'T HAVE." On the other hand, recorded history.

by ori_b 13y ago

a_bonobo 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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 13y ago

"But, but, but... who will build the roads!?" > And who decides that those tests are rigorous? Really? Who decides those things now? That's the whole point: look at all the disasters the FDA has approved (and the high barrier to entering the marketplace they create, which kills an unknowable number of things that could be tremendously beneficial). People have to make decisions with the best information that they have. At least with a commercial entity, you can see where the interests are aligned, instead of operating under the delusion that benevolent agents of the state are out there working on your behalf. Here's a parallel example: the FDIC exists to insure bank deposit holders up to $100k (formerly $250k, but oh well). Now, with the FDIC, you have every incentive to ignore your bank and assume that your deposits are safe. What about without the FDIC? Maybe you're more concerned with how your bank invests your money. Maybe you ask to see their balance sheet. Maybe you see how disastrously over-leveraged they are and take your money elsewhere. If that happens enough times, look at all the financial crisis you SUDDENLY DON'T HAVE. That's a pretty over-simplified example, so here's a more direct one: there's a program operated by FEMA called the National Flood Insurance Program. The purpose is to provide affordable flood insurance for houses which the market has decided are too flood-prone to be insured, but for a very expensive policy, if at all. Just consider that for a second: FEMA is literally reinforcing their own existence by incentivizing people to live in places where floods might destroy their homes and kill them. I don't think it gets any more perverse than that (though realistically it probably does). The state can't help you. All it can do is provide concentrated centers of control to attract those with power and influence, and all you get in return is a false sense of security. You're literally walking into a trap and turning your brain off.

GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
"Here's a parallel example: the FDIC exists to insure bank deposit holders up to $100k (formerly $250k, but oh well). Now, with the FDIC, you have every incentive to ignore your bank and assume that your deposits are safe. What about without the FDIC? Maybe you're more concerned with how your bank invests your money. Maybe you ask to see their balance sheet. Maybe you see how disastrously over-leveraged they are and take your money elsewhere. If that happens enough times, look at all the financial crisis you SUDDENLY DON'T HAVE." On the other hand, recorded history.