[nickik]

In the common law system it would be up to a judge to make an estimation if such a question should happen. This is how common law operated for a long time. This allows judgment on a case by case bases where the judge can react to changing circumstances.

It has many advantages compared to a system where the government to literally pre-define every single thing in the economy and create specific regulation and test procedures for it, even if in most cases these things are not needed.

[take_a_breath]

We tried that system and it evolved into what we have today because there were obvious holes. The FDA didn’t create itself. Muckraking journalists (like Upton Sinclair) shines a light on the conditions which led Theodore Roosevelt to create the FDA.

Acting like the world of judicial regulation (which takes years and lots of money to see through) was somehow better seems like rose-colored glasses. Whether the FDA’s scope should be adjusted is a different discussion.

[nickik]

Making public policy based on a popular novel that didn't even claim to be totally accurate.

Food quality was improving before FDA was established and continued rising after as well. Most quality improvement is driven by consumer demand that was the case before and after FDA.

[take_a_breath]

Nobody said the policy was based on a book not is anyone advocating for it, that’s an obvious straw man.

Your mention of “quality improvement” is another slight of hand as that’s not really the FDA’s purpose nor do you support it with sources. Show some data for food (and drug) safety preceding and following the FDA and we can discuss.