Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jmde 3578 days ago
My position is that the FDA's role should be strictly limited to testing products for labeling fraud (i.e., that ingredients are as they appear on the labeling) and maybe doing tests and releasing those results to the public so consumers can make informed decisions. They should have no regulatory authority beyond those things.

I don't buy antibacterial soaps, but I'm concerned about this decision because it seems overreaching. I get the tragedy of the commons aspect, though, so am a bit unsure of that.

However, I agree with original position taken by one of the parent posters: there's a very politically dangerous position implicitly being supported in the US now, which is the default is that citizens are not competent to do anything, and that they have to show that they are, as opposed to the alternative, which is to assume that they are competent, and that the burden of proof should be to show that they aren't. What people are implicitly buying into, without meaning to seem hyperbolic, is a totalitarian state, where the default is lack of rights that you have to earn, rather than a default of rights that the state has to take away.

Sure, along time ago medicine was full of quack remedies, etc. But what do we have now? A corrupt system run by monopolies in all corners, and unaffordable by most citizens.

If people take nutritional supplements, that's their decision and their responsibility. If a supplement manufacturer adulterates their products, the problem is fraud, not the ability of the consumer to make the decision.

People do all sorts of stupid things. Preventing them from doing so is not the responsibility of the government.

I keep going back to the example of taxes, which is a good parallel. Imagine that the government, a year from now, mandates that no one can do their own taxes anymore, and that only individuals with a specific degree and license, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars, and years of training, can do any taxes. What would people think of that? There would be an outcry, and legitimate concerns about corruption and collusion. But we are completely fine with the government telling us what to eat, and how to wash our hands, and what drugs we should be putting into our bodies, and what not.

The same government that classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance, so dangerous that no one should possess it. Absolutely no problem with government regulation of health decisions. Totally trustworthy. (btw, I've never used cannabis either, so that's not my skin in the game)