Great example of why the FDA has to be abolished.

[joe]

I live in New York and I frequent the internet, so I encounter plenty of liberals. As an ex-liberal, I'm sympathetic to their feelings. But I feel they are too afraid of the market, and put too much faith in the government.

One of the best examples of this is the "FDA" argument. Want to get a liberal mad... tell them we should get rid of the FDA. "Without the FDA, we'll all be eating rats in our chop meat and the entire country will be overrun by vicious illness!"

This is a classic case of the "Patriot Act Syndrome," seen in conservatives. You liberals should relate to this. We all know that the Patriot Act is a huge violation of civil liberties, and is a scary piece of legislation. But those who support it don't care what the bill actually DOES, they only read the title. "PATRIOT act! America, **** yeah!"

Liberals do the same thing, but with government agencies. "Food and Drug administration. They are there to protect us. They keep our food clean. They keep those damn evil corporations in line."

Um yeah, all good. Except the fact that.. they do very little of that. In practice, they're a menace to regular Americans and are more in the business of harassment than protection.

Here's a great example of that.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/14-k...l-man-to-stop/

This is the story of a minister, who gives away sperm to couples who can't have children, for free. He has fathered 14 children, helping out those families, who mutually agree to use his semen.

What does the FDA do? Applaud him for his generosity? Use him as an example of human kindness?

No, they shut down his operation. Why? Because he doesn't follow their requirement for getting STI tests before giving sperm.

The first thing you must ask yourself, is WHY THE HELL DOES THE FDA HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR MEN TO GIVE SPERM. This is the food and drug administration. Why are they even involved?

The second thing is, why should they care what free people choose to do? This is couples who willingly, mutually, and happily use his sperm. If they want a blood test, they can get one from someone else. This guy does it for free, and if he has to take constant blood tests, he'll have to charge.

The FDA is now forcing this man to stop his operations. He's contesting that. But at what cost? Huge lawyer fees. Time spent in court. Meanwhile, the FDA is taking our tax dollars for all of this.

This is just but one example, and it is by no means an outlier. This stuff is happening everyday. The FDA is a menace to society, and to regular people.

The problem is, this isn't just an FDA problem. It's a government agency problem. You give a bureaucracy some federal government backing, and they run amok. They won't just try to achieve their intended goals. They expand, like a virus, and end up taking on responsibilities that have nothing to do with their initial purpose.

tl;dr, i know

But you liberals specifically, should really start to open your eyes to this stuff. A lot of you are smart, but you put blind faith into government. All you have to do is a little research, and you can find a million examples of federal bureaucracy invading the personal lives of people... for no good reason at all.

[RidonKs]

yeah, i'd much rather read in the story about rampant viral epidemics and diseased babies still in the womb. i dunno, i don't really consider it that unwholesome to force a 'sperm clinic' to check for STD's and require licensing. i mean, i follow your story and it sucks that this guy is getting the stick for being a good samaritan, but that's dangerous behaviour through which innocent people can easily get f*cked, and not in the good way.

i read a story about an immigrant and his mid-20s daughter who launched a yogurt business is socal or maybe the bay area. somewhere around there. this guy had been making yogurt for decades using his very special method from the old country, which i think used unpasteurized milk. anyway, the gist of it was that their practise went against fda standards pertaining to a regulation from immediately after the war. don't think much has changed since then?

here's the article

now obviously this would fall under the same heading as your story -- unintended collateral damage. and yeah, that probably does happen a lot, peeps getting jerked around by the system. but i have a sneaking hunch that it might be less a product of the regulations themselves and more of their validity in the here and now. i know, i know, more government agencies isn't the answer, but a review board to rule on the necessity of extending regulation and cutting it wherever possible. it's the outdatedness of the red tape that really drives people up the wall. but all that stuff just stays on the books until the following year. i'm sure there is some sort of review process already in place, but i doubt it's stringent enough.

[joe]

yeah, i'd much rather read in the story about rampant viral epidemics and diseased babies still in the womb. i dunno, i don't really consider it that unwholesome to force a 'sperm clinic' to check for STD's and require licensing. i mean, i follow your story and it sucks that this guy is getting the stick for being a good samaritan, but that's dangerous behaviour through which innocent people can easily get f*cked, and not in the good way.

i read a story about an immigrant and his mid-20s daughter who launched a yogurt business is socal or maybe the bay area. somewhere around there. this guy had been making yogurt for decades using his very special method from the old country, which i think used unpasteurized milk. anyway, the gist of it was that their practise went against fda standards pertaining to a regulation from immediately after the war. don't think much has changed since then?

here's the article

now obviously this would fall under the same heading as your story -- unintended collateral damage. and yeah, that probably does happen
a lot, peeps getting jerked around by the system. but i have a sneaking hunch that it might be less a product of the regulations themselves and more of their validity in the here and now. i know, i know, more government agencies isn't the answer, but a review board to rule on the necessity of extending regulation and cutting it wherever possible. it's the outdatedness of the red tape that really drives people up the wall. but all that stuff just stays on the books until the following year. i'm sure there is some sort of review process already in place, but i doubt it's stringent enough.

Think about what you're proposing. The regulators are failing, so we should.... regulate them?

You can call it a review board if you wish. But at the end of the day, it's a government agency trying to watch over another government agency. It's a bureaucracy.

The problem is, government bureaucracies = unchecked power. The people doing the checking aren't being checked. And they end up doing ridiculous things like my story above. Or, worse, taking handouts from the very industry they're supposed to regulate.

Do you really think there would be viral epidemics if we got rid of the FDA? Is the market really that horrible at weeding out bad companies?

Pop quiz for you.

1) The reason people start a business is to ________ (kill people, fly to mars, make a profit). If the business treats its customers poorly, their customers will ________ (keep buying from them, start buying more from them, find a better alternative). Therefore, the market itself ________ (forces businesses to satisfy their customers just to stay in business, forces businesses to kill people, forces businesses to be evil).

If a business is getting its customers sick, who will buy from them? It completely ignores basic human logic.

Besides, the market itself can regulate a food business in other ways. How about a private magazine/web site, that investigates the business practices of food companies? If people are really worried about safe food, you'll see stuff like that. Just like the movie "super size me" and other such things.

[Jailblazers7]

The FDA is a tricky one because of the potential damage an unregulated market for drugs could cause. The effects of modern pharmacueticals can have very deadly and debilitating consequences that don't appear for months or years.

I know the free market could supply regulatory institutions on its own to keep drug companies in check and test drugs but it would be a pretty huge leap of faith for the majority of Americans to just do away with the FDA.

[RidonKs]

Do you really think there would be viral epidemics if we got rid of the FDA? Is the market really that horrible at weeding out bad companies?

no, that was just a joke. the fact that the FDA is already in place means abolishing it would do less harm than would've occurred had it never existed in the first place.

Pop quiz for you.

1) The FDA is abolished. All of the sudden everyone who eats food from wal-mart is getting sick. What will those people do?

2) You're thinking of spending 4-500 bucks on Thanksgiving dinner. Your friend tells you not to get your food from X store, because their food isn't as high quality and it's more expensive. They suggest Y store instead. What do you do?

3) A company is consistently getting its customers sick. They lose business en masse. They can either start using better quality food, and enforce higher quality standards on themselves.. or go out of business. What do they do?

these aren't real situations. you made them up for your very specific purposes. i mean, it's not hard to figure out what you're trying to say. people react to word of mouth which gets around which means in the end, any malpractice will be punished by fewer future earnings.

it just.... it doesn't work like that. well okay, it can, but it doesn't happen like that anywhere near enough to base our entire economic enterprise on that logic. in reality, with supply chains and globalization and the like, tracing the real source of our products isn't that easy. take a strain of e-coli that slips into, i dunno, chicken. but since they don't know, the contaminated chicken is sent all over town, to grocery store after grocery store. it isn't about knowing which store has the healthy chicken because they all have the same goddamn chicken and none of it is healthy... except for Joe the Butcher, who hunts for his own meat.

or maybe my friend suggested that thanksgiving store because he put up 25% of the stake and wants it to do well. or maybe he had a stuffed up nose when he ate from the other place which made him not like it, thus unfairly punishing the what might be a fabulous restaurant on account of my idiot friend's lack of judgment.

but that third one is the best... let me ask you something, hmm? you phrased it as an ultimatum, either clean up your act or go out of business. in the absence of any regulators with real teeth, or hell even with the watchdogs at full attention, you think a CEO is going to frame the problem like that? there's always always always an alternative solution, and if you don't mind hurting a few people to avoid losing your business, great. get 'er done. that's the American way, and that's why red tape was introduced in the first place. nobody is arguing that there should be more across the board (though certainly in particular industries), but the role that regulation plays in economic management is absolutely crucial.


you changed your quiz but the points still stand. your hypothetical scenarios are simplistic and inapplicable to the world at large without major qualifiers.

[joe]

The FDA is a tricky one because of the potential damage an unregulated market for drugs could cause. The effects of modern pharmacueticals can have very deadly and debilitating consequences that don't appear for months or years.

I know the free market could supply regulatory institutions on its own to keep drug companies in check and test drugs but it would be a pretty huge leap of faith for the majority of Americans to just do away with the FDA.

Anything could have a deadly and debilitating consequence months or years later. I have headphones on every day, who knows what that will do to my ears long term? What about cell phone waves. Looking at LCD screens? Riding on bikes that may have poisonous paint. Nobody knew cigarettes were bad for you for quite a while.

We take risks when we buy things. Drugs are no different. The only alternative is just to make every new item illegal because, who knows that the long term effects will be?

Thing is, the FDA can't do anything special to catch dangerous drugs. All they do is seriously slow down the process, so it takes years and years for a new drug to hit the market. In that time, who knows how many lives could have been saved or improved?

And that's assuming the FDA is doing its job, which its not. They take money from some companies to get their pills out quickly. But others who can't afford the bribe can't get their stuff out at all. They artificially kill competition, which is probably worse for quality than anything.

And btw, it's not like the drugs we have out now are models of safety. "Side effects may include, dizzyness, diahrea, depression, suicidal thoughts, increased risk of gambling, or even death. If you feel pain in your arm while on this pill please call your doctor immediately as you may be having heart failure."

[joe]

no, that was just a joke. the fact that the FDA is already in place means abolishing it would do less harm than would've occurred had it never existed in the first place.


these aren't real situations. you made them up for your very specific purposes. i mean, it's not hard to figure out what you're trying to say. people react to word of mouth which gets around which means in the end, any malpractice will be punished by fewer future earnings.

it just.... it doesn't work like that. well okay, it can, but it doesn't happen like that anywhere near enough to base our entire economic enterprise on that logic. in reality, with supply chains and globalization and the like, tracing the real source of our products isn't that easy. take a strain of e-coli that slips into, i dunno, chicken. but since they don't know, the contaminated chicken is sent all over town, to grocery store after grocery store. it isn't about knowing which store has the healthy chicken because they all have the same goddamn chicken and none of it is healthy... except for Joe the Butcher, who hunts for his own meat.

or maybe my friend suggested that thanksgiving store because he put up 25% of the stake and wants it to do well. or maybe he had a stuffed up nose when he ate from the other place which made him not like it, thus unfairly punishing the what might be a fabulous restaurant on account of my idiot friend's lack of judgment.

but that third one is the best... let me ask you something, hmm? you phrased it as an ultimatum, either clean up your act or go out of business. in the absence of any regulators with real teeth, or hell even with the watchdogs at full attention, you think a CEO is going to frame the problem like that? there's always always always an alternative solution, and if you don't mind hurting a few people to avoid losing your business, great. get 'er done. that's the American way, and that's why red tape was introduced in the first place. nobody is arguing that there should be more across the board (though certainly in particular industries), but the role that regulation plays in economic management is absolutely crucial.


you changed your quiz but the points still stand. your hypothetical scenarios are simplistic and inapplicable to the world at large without major qualifiers.

I changed my quiz cuz at lot of the questions were redundant. I'll answer the rest in a bit..

[joe]

no, that was just a joke. the fact that the FDA is already in place means abolishing it would do less harm than would've occurred had it never existed in the first place.


these aren't real situations. you made them up for your very specific purposes. i mean, it's not hard to figure out what you're trying to say. people react to word of mouth which gets around which means in the end, any malpractice will be punished by fewer future earnings.

it just.... it doesn't work like that. well okay, it can, but it doesn't happen like that anywhere near enough to base our entire economic enterprise on that logic. in reality, with supply chains and globalization and the like, tracing the real source of our products isn't that easy. take a strain of e-coli that slips into, i dunno, chicken. but since they don't know, the contaminated chicken is sent all over town, to grocery store after grocery store. it isn't about knowing which store has the healthy chicken because they all have the same goddamn chicken and none of it is healthy... except for Joe the Butcher, who hunts for his own meat.

or maybe my friend suggested that thanksgiving store because he put up 25% of the stake and wants it to do well. or maybe he had a stuffed up nose when he ate from the other place which made him not like it, thus unfairly punishing the what might be a fabulous restaurant on account of my idiot friend's lack of judgment.

you changed your quiz but the points still stand. your hypothetical scenarios are simplistic and inapplicable to the world at large without major qualifiers.

Why do we have to trace the real source of our products? People don't need to know all of that. They just need to know that they went to Wal-Mart, ate the chicken, and got sick as all hell. Case closed. No more eating that chicken from wal-mart.

If you go to a hair salon, and the person messes up your hair, what do you really need to know? Do you need to know where she went to hair school, so you can no longer get haircuts from ANYONE who went there? Do you need to know what type of clippers she used, and not get a haircut from anyone who uses those clippers?

No. You just don't get your damn haircut from that stupid lady anymore. It's really that simple.

but that third one is the best... let me ask you something, hmm? you phrased it as an ultimatum, either clean up your act or go out of business. in the absence of any regulators with real teeth, or hell even with the watchdogs at full attention, you think a CEO is going to frame the problem like that? there's always always always an alternative solution, and if you don't mind hurting a few people to avoid losing your business, great. get 'er done. that's the American way, and that's why red tape was introduced in the first place. nobody is arguing that there should be more across the board (though certainly in particular industries), but the role that regulation plays in economic management is absolutely crucial.

The consumers are the watch dogs, that's what you don't get. You think consumers are all victims, and have no chance against the business machine. No. People have a choice to buy what they want to buy, from who they want to buy it from.

The CEO is going to frame the problem like this. Either I satisfy these people, and put out a product they're willing to buy.. or I don't make a profit.

What "alternative solutions" are there? You either satisfy your customers or you don't make as much profit. What alternative is there to that?

[Jailblazers7]

Anything could have a deadly and debilitating consequence months or years later. I have headphones on every day, who knows what that will do to my ears long term? What about cell phone waves. Looking at LCD screens? Riding on bikes that may have poisonous paint. Nobody knew cigarettes were bad for you for quite a while.

We take risks when we buy things. Drugs are no different. The only alternative is just to make every new item illegal because, who knows that the long term effects will be?

Thing is, the FDA can't do anything special to catch dangerous drugs. All they do is seriously slow down the process, so it takes years and years for a new drug to hit the market. In that time, who knows how many lives could have been saved or improved?

And that's assuming the FDA is doing its job, which its not. They take money from some companies to get their pills out quickly. But others who can't afford the bribe can't get their stuff out at all. They artificially kill competition, which is probably worse for quality than anything.

And btw, it's not like the drugs we have out now are models of safety. "Side effects may include, dizzyness, diahrea, depression, suicidal thoughts, increased risk of gambling, or even death. If you feel pain in your arm while on this pill please call your doctor immediately as you may be having heart failure."

I understand these arguments but you can just leave out stupid things like the first paragraph. Its insulting to my (and your) intelligence and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

I agree that the free-market would probably provide better institution to regulate drugs. Regulation could be split into specialties for drugs by disease, area of the body it treats, etc.

Getting rid of something like the FDA takes a TON of faith in the free-market, which is something a lot of people don't have. They want to be able to trust that someone is insuring the safety of these drugs or at least keeping a minimum standard of safety. The FDA may slow the process and the lives lost because of that is nothing to overlook, but what happens in the reverse scenario? What will happen if drugs are pushed through the process too quickly? People feel a little comfort knowing something is FDA approved.

I've discussed this with my one professor and we kind of agreed that a rating system would probably occur similar to bond ratings. There would be a system to signify the risk of a drug so the consumer can take on the possible risks if they choose to.

[joe]

I understand these arguments but you can just leave out stupid things like the first paragraph. Its insulting to my (and your) intelligence and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

I agree that the free-market would probably provide better institution to regulate drugs. Regulation could be split into specialties for drugs by disease, area of the body it treats, etc.

Getting rid of something like the FDA takes a TON of faith in the free-market, which is something a lot of people don't have. They want to be able to trust that someone is insuring the safety of these drugs or at least keeping a minimum standard of safety. The FDA may slow the process and the lives lost because of that is nothing to overlook, but what happens in the reverse scenario? What will happen if drugs are pushed through the process too quickly? People feel a little comfort knowing something is FDA approved.

I've discussed this with my one professor and we kind of agreed that a rating system would probably occur similar to bond ratings. There would be a system to signify the risk of a drug so the consumer can take on the possible risks if they choose to.

Well it seems we mostly agree on this, but I don't understand why you dissed my first paragraph? The point is, people have a view that since drugs may cause long term harm, they need to be regulated differently. My point was, a lot of things could cause long term harm. And that we all take risks when we choose to buy things. Not sure why you thought it was such a stupid comment.

But I definitely agree with what you're saying, as far as people not having faith in the free market. But I think that's why we're having this discussion, no? People aren't going to magically have faith in it, its virtues need to be talked about and debated. And plus, it's just fun to debate a bit, isn't it ?

[Jailblazers7]

Well it seems we mostly agree on this, but I don't understand why you dissed my first paragraph? The point is, people have a view that since drugs may cause long term harm, they need to be regulated differently. My point was, a lot of things could cause long term harm. And that we all take risks when we choose to buy things. Not sure why you thought it was such a stupid comment.

But I definitely agree with what you're saying, as far as people not having faith in the free market. But I think that's why we're having this discussion, no? People aren't going to magically have faith in it, its virtues need to be talked about and debated. And plus, it's just fun to debate a bit, isn't it ?

It was stupid because you are comparing a TV and bike paint to injesting a synthetically produced drug that almost surely has some form of harmful consequence. They are directly comparable to the danger with drugs is a fundamental part of their use while "poisonous bike paint" is one of those weird news stories that are impossible to predict. I just don't see how that paragraph was useful at all and it feels like you are trying to speak to me like I'm in middle school lol.

If the FDA were to get abolished, I think it would have to be phased out somehow. Allow the market institutions to develop and people will gradually build trust in them. I don't think we could just eliminate the FDA cold turkey. The trouble with that is convincing a government regulatory institution to give up power lol. Things like phasing out the FDA would almost surely have to come from the oval office.

[joe]

It was stupid because you are comparing a TV and bike paint to injesting a synthetically produced drug that almost surely has some form of harmful consequence. They are directly comparable to the danger with drugs is a fundamental part of their use while "poisonous bike paint" is one of those weird news stories that are impossible to predict. I just don't see how that paragraph was useful at all and it feels like you are trying to speak to me like I'm in middle school lol.

If the FDA were to get abolished, I think it would have to be phased out somehow. Allow the market institutions to develop and people will gradually build trust in them. I don't think we could just eliminate the FDA cold turkey. The trouble with that is convincing a government regulatory institution to give up power lol. Things like phasing out the FDA would almost surely have to come from the oval office.

Oh nahhh man, I'm sorry that it came off that way. I know you're a smart guy.

It's useful because one of the big "criticisms" of the free market, is that businesses may sell us dangerous products. My point was, a lot of what we buy could be dangerous, long term. Something like the FDA isn't going to stop that. Or, if it does, it does so while at the same time causing a lot of unintended problems and costing a lot of money.

I don't know if I'd agree that drugs are necessarily more dangerous. What if you live in a house with asbestos for 20 years? Or what if laptops really deform your sperm and can cause sickness in your kids? We're in the first generation of wide spread cell phone use.. do we really know how bad they are for your brain? I think singling out drugs isn't really fair.

Really sorry if I sounded condescending. I def. didn't mean it. And ya, I agree, public opinion wouldn't allow us to go cold turkey on the FDA. But hopefully public opinion can be changed, one fact at a time

[Dasher]

The consequences in the short term of abolishing The FDA would get the agency reconstituted. Reform at The FDA is needed, but it is one of the few government agencies that I believe is necessary.

[nightprowler10]

I work in pharma manufacturing, which includes formulation, filling, and packaging of saline solution to cystic fibrosis drugs. Not offering an opinion but speaking from experience, having dealt with the FDA on and off for the last 10 years, I can say the following.

I hate the FDA. But I also realize they are a necessary force (almost used 'evil' instead ). I work at a facility where we have, ourselves, written 100s of procedures that most of our workers don't follow correctly because they don't understand their importance. The FDA comes in and tells us to follow our own procedures, no more no less. Up to that point the FDA does a great job. And this is coming from someone who almost lost his job because of them back in '08.

All that said, they are corrupt and do get lobbied by the bigger pharma companies not to let the little guys challenge their superiority. To give you an example, they will not let anyone make plastic injectable vials even though it is proven to be safe and is allowed in Europe. But companies like Abbott and Baxter lobby the FDA not to allow anyone to make it, as it would force them to be competitive on their astronomically priced glass vials. With all the cases of microscopic glass shards being found in these vials lately, we've ramped up our efforts to challenge the FDA again (I'm actually on that project right now).

Also, keep in mind that from a pharma man's perspective, the FDA does not have anywhere near the amount of high standard of how the drug should be made as the European or Japanese agencies. FDA is more comparable to the Brazilian standard. Just making a room that is EU compliant for manufacturing is a massive undertaking. To meet the FDA standard all you have to do is out up plexiglass walls and paneled ceilings as you would in your basement, and you're good to go.

EDIT: I should mention that the FDA does require a properly designed HVAC system, which makes all the difference.

[joe]

I work in pharma manufacturing, which includes formulation, filling, and packaging of saline solution to cystic fibrosis drugs. Not offering an opinion but speaking from experience, having dealt with the FDA on and off for the last 10 years, I can say the following.

I hate the FDA. But I also realize they are a necessary force (almost used 'evil' instead ). I work at a facility where we have, ourselves, written 100s of procedures that most of our workers don't follow correctly because they don't understand their importance. The FDA comes in and tells us to follow our own procedures, no more no less. Up to that point the FDA does a great job. And this is coming from someone who almost lost his job because of them back in '08.

All that said, they are corrupt and do get lobbied by the bigger pharma companies not to let the little guys challenge their superiority. To give you an example, they will not let anyone make plastic injectable vials even though it is proven to be safe and is allowed in Europe. But companies like Abbott and Baxter lobby the FDA not to allow anyone to make it, as it would force them to be competitive on their astronomically priced glass vials. With all the cases of microscopic glass shards being found in these vials lately, we've ramped up our efforts to challenge the FDA again (I'm actually on that project right now).

Also, keep in mind that from a pharma man's perspective, the FDA does not have anywhere near the amount of high standard of how the drug should be made as the European or Japanese agencies. FDA is more comparable to the Brazilian standard. Just making a room that is EU compliant for manufacturing is a massive undertaking. To meet the FDA standard all you have to do is out up plexiglass walls and paneled ceilings as you would in your basement, and you're good to go.

Want to give your opinion on why you think they're a necessary force (Or should I say, evil)?