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 bod

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.