[TheOtherHobbes]

>First, there can be a commercial consumer group that finds error, the buys nearly wothless claims from lots of consumers and goes after the seller with those.

That's actually what government is for. You pay it money, and if you have a good government it includes a branch to make sure consumers aren't ripped off/poisoned/injured/killed/etc.

Some governments, like the EU, are actually quite good at this.

A commercial consumer group can always be bought out, infiltrated, or threatened with bankruptcy by someone with superior spending power.

A government can only be taken over from the inside - often by those who pretend to support libertarian ideals, but in practice simply want to operate at various levels of criminality without challenge or oversight.

But a government can never be taken over completely. There are always people who believe that market forces are a naive and unworkable ideology, and are willing to work against their excesses. They have a natural role in government regulation, but no natural role in markets.

[nickik]

> That's actually what government is for. Y

Im happy that you believe this. I however don't. So where does that leave us?

> You pay it money, and if you have a good government it includes a branch to make sure consumers aren't ripped off/poisoned/injured/killed/etc.

I pay the money because I don't really have the option to only pay for the government I like.

If you feel that way how about a tax on all products that are FDA approved that pay for the FDA. Other products can be sold with a stamp on it, not FDA approved.

> Some governments, like the EU, are actually quite good at this.

I would disagree.

> A government can only be taken over from the inside - often by those who pretend to support libertarian ideals, but in practice simply want to operate at various levels of criminality without challenge or oversight.

> But a government can never be taken over completely. There are always people who believe that market forces are a naive and unworkable ideology, and are willing to work against their excesses. They have a natural role in government regulation, but no natural role in markets.

I don't really understand your point.

Its defiantly not libertarians or people who claim libertarian ideals who create, run and push for more of these regulatory agencies.

[davewasthere]

Actually, the EU have pretty good legislation for cosmetics on this point and do do a good job. I get that you disagree, but any reason why you disagree?

At least, in the EU, manufacturers are held to a standard and are fined/prosecuted if they breach those standards. It's not an 'honor system' as bloomberg report. Lets face it, if there's an honor system, and you could buy maltodextrin powder instead of real aloe powder, the bulk of companies would probably do it to make a profit.

[nickik]

I disagree because the EU does not allow me to buy what I might want to buy. I value having option hand making my own choice. I am even ok with paying taxes for them to do their job. I would be happy if only people who buy 'EU approved labeled' products had to pay for the service, but that not the most important.

There is nothing about honor in the system that I want. If you are found to be fraudulent you should be suit for a lot of money. That money should go to the person/people sued you. Even better would be a system were you can make collective action law suits by buying up small claims.

In general such a tort based system is better because it does not require every product to go threw a cost adding regulatory step, reducing prices. Cost only happens if suit is needed, and in the waste majority of cases there will never be a case. Thus the overall system is cheaper, faster to market and gives the consumer more options.

I don't know anything about cosmetic regulation, this applies to all consumer product regulation equally. Im happy to trust you on this. I am not impaling that all regulators are bad, or always wrong and Im not saying that the US system is better then the European one. I probably rather have the EU system, but Im happy to stay in the Swiss system for now :)

[dalai]

> I disagree because the EU does not allow me to buy what I might want to buy.

This is not true. What they are trying to ensure is that you buy what you think you are buying and it is reasonably safe. If for example you want to buy a fake aloe product you can, it is just not allowed that it says aloe on the packaging.

> There is nothing about honor in the system that I want.

The honor system in this case means that the company is responsible for controlling itself and not defrauding consumers. They can still decide not to obey it and there is always the possibility that someone might check.

See public transportation in many cities as an example. You don't need to prove that you bought the ticket to get on the bus (the company trusts you), but if someone checks you pay a fine. I would say that this is not very far from what you want.

> If you are found to be fraudulent you should be sued for a lot of money

Well the problem with this is the "if" and the "when". It might take years for the fraud to be discovered and not all damages are easily fixed with compensation money (e.g. medical problems may arise). There is also no way to make sure that the money is recovered. Companies do go bankrupt. For the managers of a company, a 5% chance of a company-killing lawsuit in the next 10 years may even be worthwhile, if the profit is high enough and they (personally) can get away with it. And then there are those companies that are too big to fail anyway (too many workplaces lost, too many people directly affected, etc.)

> consumer more options

I'd rather have two options for which I am fairly certain that they are safe and not fake, than ten or twenty that could be anything. Leaving the checking to private initiatives and/or self-control is at least blind optimism. The incentives are not really there. At best it will be done only for things where the potential for large compensation sums is high.