[yakak]

If I've been following this story correctly:

FDA catches conspiracy to recklessly endanger (as in quite possibly murder) a huge number of infants over a vast geographic area. Perpetrators caught then not given sufficient help bypassing FDA procedures nor a reduction in oversight as they resume production and filling out paperwork they previously falsified.

Other competitors apparently non-existent probably thanks to free market forces and this competitor who used illegal methods to have lower costs than legal operation. I.e. bad batch costs saved by falsifying paperwork.

FDA hesitant to allow import of these products as foreign production would be out of its jurisdiction and the lowest international bidder is presumably saving more money than the factory they just closed, somehow..

Can the FDA single out specific EU countries and criticize their regulators or would it face massive pressure to approve all countries the US has a cozy relationship with that have an infant formula?

I.e. the UK which has no regulatory history relevant to it's current restructuring as a non-EU Nation. Should thousands of US infants be among the first to iron out defects in a changing system for regulating potentially deadly products that is focused on being more cost effective for the UK?

[pjscott]

> Other competitors apparently non-existent probably thanks to free market forces

The article goes into the reasons for market consolidation. To summarize: there's a combination of steep regulatory barriers (which inherently favor big, established businesses with large lobbying and compliance budgets), single-supplier state purchase contracts that account for roughly half of all baby formula purchases, and effectively cutting off imports. The market forces are downstream of government action, and the market in question is anything but free.

[yakak]

OK, restricted market forces. Plenty of large players bid (or consider risking an entry) keeping in mind the costs of complying with regulations. One that cheats has lower costs than the others calculate preventing competition.

The solution is to remove regulation and testing so thousands of bidders compete on providing an all melamine formula at an exceptional price?

[pjscott]

There are options other than "no regulation" and "exactly the level and type of regulation we have now". For example, you could impose expensive liability for selling defective formula (retail or wholesale), and trust that Walmart will choose reputable suppliers and do proper quality control -- because it's cheaper for them than being irresponsible.

[dariusj18]

The post started off with a seemingly reasonable yet obviously naïve example of flaws in the process, then goes on a rant where it reframes every tweet by the FDA in a gross mischaracterization.

The funniest thing here is that there would be very few people in the world that would count any international trade as a part of the "free market". So any restriction placed by the US government on importing any products would implicitly not have any effect on the "free market" that most people refer to, and most people that would drool over the "free market" would also be the same people to decry any movement towards globalism.

But even then, why wouldn't these European manufacturer just print a second set of labels for selling their product to the US, if it's just a "labeling requirement"? Sounds like a very fishy claim.