Ron Paul on the FDA

I have engaged a few college friends in a debate on Ron Paul. I gave a pitch and asked for those who disagree with his policies to challenge me. I have done fine, but my one friend, a graduate student on public policy, attacked his position on abolishing the FDA. I understand the general ideas behind Paul's position, but I was wondering if anyone had any advice as how to best approach it. My research on the ways of the FDA at this point has been rather limited, and while I could make a good case why the FDA and other regulatory bodies cannot work in theory, I was hoping someone had more specific examples of their ineptness.

FDA has killed many lives because of prohibiting unlicensed drugs. FDA makes medicine more expensive. It takes years and costs billions of dollars to make a drug because of our FDA. FDA inhibits drug innovation. FDA makes many mistakes and misconceptions about food. Private agences can do better.

References
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33117.html
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=279

Look into the FDA's handling of aspertame.  It is a striking example of how the system gets corrupted by those who have the money and influence to buy its decisions.  Over all, the only arguement that can be made against the FDA is that it is not working as intended.  It has become corrupted and is failing at its intended role to protect consumers.  It is instead being used by big business to block competition and allow unsafe products from privileged, well connected companies to make it to market.  The theory of a central government organization monitoring foods and drugs to prevent dangerous things from reaching consumers who don't have the time or intelligence to investigate everything they buy and use is solid.  In practice it is failing though due to corruption.

I agree that the FDA is dangerous at worst and pointless at least, but i do have question relating to aspertame. What does it do to you?

 Any regulatory agency is governed by Bastiat's principles of the seen and the unseen.  Except for when large quantities of money enter the equation, the incentive of the regulator is always toward overcaution.  If the agency approves a new drug, and it causes unforeseen illnesses or deaths, those are highly visible results, and the finger is quickly pointed at the agency for failing in its duty.  On the other hand, the lives that might have been saved or improved by a new drug that was not approved are unseen.  The agency loses nothing, and takes no blame, for holding up approval for years or decades while people die.   It's also absurdly expensive, costing upwards of half a billion dollars, to get a new drug approved.  Obviously this means higher prices (those who complain about "out of control medical costs" take note!), but it also means that only drugs with potentially large markets are likely to be developed at all.  Niche drugs for rare diseases simply aren't a good investment if sales won't recoup the costs of getting them past the regulatory agency.  Again, it's the unseen - people suffering and dying from uncommon illnesses - who are the victims of regulation.

 On the other hand, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the free market would not provide all the regulation necessary, without the perverse incentives and inefficiency.  Doctors would have the freedom to recommend a new drug, and also a stake in carefully weighing both the risks and benefits of prescribing it (patients dying either because of or for lack of treatment are both bad for business!), and there would undoubtedly be private companies making reviews and risk assessments available to consumers (a la Underwriter's Laboratories.)  

 

Watch "Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-566922170441334340

Basically it is an artificial sweetener that has been shown to cause a variety of cancers and other deseases.  The FDA was aware of this but due to corrupt influences approved the substance anyways.

freewheeler:

I have engaged a few college friends in a debate on Ron Paul. I gave a pitch and asked for those who disagree with his policies to challenge me. I have done fine, but my one friend, a graduate student on public policy, attacked his position on abolishing the FDA. I understand the general ideas behind Paul's position, but I was wondering if anyone had any advice as how to best approach it. My research on the ways of the FDA at this point has been rather limited, and while I could make a good case why the FDA and other regulatory bodies cannot work in theory, I was hoping someone had more specific examples of their ineptness.

 

Again, another case where I'll agree with you folks.

The FDA is a mostly useless institution.

First of all, it's widely acknowledged that they can't and don't inspect all food and consumer products (something a lot of people weren't aware of untl the "Chinese petfood" scandal a while back). So the existence of the FDA puts forth a false  and misleading assurance of quality to consumers, which I'm sure business leaders just love.

Furthermore, as noted by Stossel and plenty of other Libertarians, they've frequently stopped good drugs from getting passed while letting bad drugs get passed, and shielding such companies from lawsuits. Overall, the FDA seems like nothing more than collusion between government and the pharmaceutical companies, and the various trade cartels (like the U.S. Dairy Association) to drive up price, put the burden of quality control on government, and shield businesses from lawsuits.

And that is what the FDA is: "Quality control." Quality contol is not something governments should be doing. There is a problem of asymmetry of information which can be addressed by fining false advertisers and requiring product labeling, but the primary responsibility of the FDA as overseeing the "safety" of products is absurd.

As said, the problem is asymmetry of information, right? Well, the bureaucrats in charge don't know anymore about the safety of Farmer Joe's meat or  Troglitazone than the average consumer. After all, politicians aren't scientists or appointed by scientists. They're appointed by consumers to represent consumers, so they reflect the general ignorance of consumers.

For this reason, I'll often polemically agree with the assertion, "Abolish the FDA!!" What I mean is drastically cutting its regulatory ability and shifting the role of the FDA from "quality control" to "consumer awareness," so that consumers themselves can make decisions about which foods and drugs are safe.

Deist:

I agree that the FDA is dangerous at worst and pointless at least, but i do have question relating to aspertame. What does it do to you?

 

Aspartame causes cancer... But only if you live in the state of California.

Nathyn:

Aspartame causes cancer... But only if you live in the state of California.

The carcinogen claims about aspartame were overblown.  What was underblown, though, was the fact that aspartame is a neurotoxin.  Do a search on Mercola.com for asparatame articles.

 On the FDA - nothing that has been brought up should surprise us.  The problem with the FDA, as with any regulatory agency, is regulatory capture.  There is a reason that the strongest supporters of building all these agencies have always been the very corporations the agencies claim to regulate.  Competition is difficult - it is far easier to get an agency like the FDA to entrench your position at or near the top and stop having to defend it from competitors. 

kevinabt:

Watch "Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-566922170441334340

Basically it is an artificial sweetener that has been shown to cause a variety of cancers and other deseases.  The FDA was aware of this but due to corrupt influences approved the substance anyways.

Yes.  If you're a rat, eat ten to fifty times the recommended amount, and then sit in a pizza oven to raise your core temperature to speed the chemical reactions along so they outpace your body.  The FDA being a government entity doesn't mean they will get everything wrong.  The bulk of evidence suggests aspartame is safe, and any substance subjected to a carcinogenic assay will prove to be carcinogenic once the needed dose is reached and any extenuating circumstances required are present.  Or until some other reaction kills the rats.  Aspartame is a bad example.  Better is the FDA's delaying of irradiation for treatment of red meat products or the practice of chicken inspecting, as if some putz looking at dead birds can beat or even augment regular testing for bacteria.

And while the FDA is for sale, the companies it's supposedly helping are also getting nailed from the rear.  Eighteen wheelers full of testing data are necessary to get drugs approved.  The companies in question don't necessarily like the cost, even though it does serve to keep their competition out, it also serves to lower demand for their products by upping the price.  That's one of the reasons why there has been a push from pharmacutical companies for the US to adopt the European Codex.  Much stricter regulations of herbal extracts and things like vitamins let them capture that market, drive smaller competitors out of business, and increase the inelasticity of the rx drug market by eliminating 'natural' alternatives or reserving to the pharma companies the sole ability to sell those alternatives.  But generally speaking, no one I know in the drug industry likes the burden the regs place on them, and many of them say outright they'd rather compete as the regulatory burden is getting way too high to be worth it.  The proper analogy would be that the FDA screws everybody, big companies with a lot of clout can purchase a reach-around.

Another effective argument, especially with liberals, is to equate the issue to abortion.  If you have the right to take out of your body what you wish at any time, even if it may one day grow up into a great human being, why do you not have the right to put in to your body what you choose, even though it may harm you?  Self sovereignty is a great approach, as are pointing out the effects of denying it to people, likle delayed cures, prolonged sufferring, reduced choices, etc.  Any cure or effective treatment that currently exists necessarily cost many people's lives as they waited and eventually died while the approval process was taking place.

Check the 9/07 Critical Reviews in Toxicology for a good summation of aspartame research to date if anyone is interested.