4 ms·
I'll have to disagree on shutting down the FDA. It's purview goes well beyond medication and into medical devices as well as food production, of course. Not hav
by eksith 12y ago
I'll have to disagree on shutting down the FDA. It's purview goes well beyond medication and into medical devices as well as food production, of course. Not having a trusted authority (central or not) to vet and evaluate products for human consumption can return things to the days of Snake Oil.
I do agree that the FDA is largely ineffective at preventing people from doing things to their bodies.
Ironically, the FDA would probably be able to better serve the public if it switches roles from enforcement to advisement. Keeping food, medication/devices and production methods to FDA standard, I believe, should get a UL type verification for things we use every day. Having that stamp brings trust that the FDA has verified the efficacy of whatever it is you put into your system, however there's nothing preventing you from going non UL if you're aware of the risks.
edit_
To the folks downvoting your post, I disagree with them as well!
- glenra 12y agoIt's worth considering that UL certification is an example of what happens when government doesn't regulate - it evolved initially as an entirely free-market mechanism to solve a real problem that regulators hadn't addressed. Get rid of the FDA and something kind of like the UL would probably spring up to replace it. But without the coercion, people would have the option to ignore it when they really need to. Incidentally, some "snake oil" actually works: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/snake-oil-salesmen-knew-something/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/snake-oil-salesmen...