The FDA

[Myself]

I was wondering whether a government run regulatory agency such as the FDA, which maintains the quality of products was an immoral extension of governmental power. If for instance a product was sold which inaccurately or misleadingly labeled their contents and included deleterious substances, or drugs for instance, still have the right to laissez faire non regulation? It is the same case for drugs (such as in the recent case of Celebrex and Bextra) where the manufacturer deliberately withheld information of harmful side effects? Or for instance a drug that was market that claimed to cure the common cold but was just a placebo (and maybe some addictive properties).

To sum up my question: should there be a regulatory organization that maintains the quality for the (shudders) common good, and if not, how would the above situations be handled?

[EC]

To sum up my question: should there be a regulatory organization that maintains the quality for the (shudders) common good, and if not, how would the above situations be handled?

No, absolutely not. If a drug company lies about the intended effects of its drug, then that is fraud and we already properly have laws against that. As for not divulging known harmful side effects this would also constitute fraud and the side effects should be listed somewhere so that the taker of the drugs can judge for themselves whether or not it is in their self-interest to take the risk.

Also what I find funny about this so-called condraversy is that the FDA takes years to "approve" a drug, causing the company to go through a bunch of red tape and clinical trials that it closely monitors before the drugs release. But when a new potentially harmful side effect is found years later it is somehow the drug company's fault and not the regulatory agency's. Welcome to the World of Non-A.

[Cole]

To sum up my question: should there be a regulatory organization that maintains the quality for the (shudders) common good, and if not, how would the above situations be handled?

It would be handled like this;

Private drug researching companies would compete with each other for a postive reputation. Drug companies such as Pfizer would hire a researching company to officially approve a drug. The researching companies would have an incentive to be certain about the drugs they approve. If they officially approve a drug and then unannounced side-affects are discovered, then this would greatly harm their reputation and would decrease the chance that they will be hired again. Drug companies have an incentive to hire researching companies with a positive reputation. If a drug company releases a drug that is approved by a researching company with a shotty record, then consumers are less likely to buy this drug and more likely to buy a similar drug from a competitor with a more stable approval. Independent investigating agencies (similar to Consumer Reports magazine- a wonderful laissez-faire tool) would pop up to keep an eye on both the drug researching companies and the drugs themselves. These agencies have an incentive to be as independent and accurate as possible, because they too are in competition with other, similar agencies.

[AisA]

I was wondering whether a government run regulatory agency such as the FDA, which maintains the quality of products was an immoral extension of governmental power. If for instance a product was sold which inaccurately or misleadingly labeled their contents and included deleterious substances, or drugs for instance, still have the right to laissez faire non regulation? It is the same case for drugs (such as in the recent case of Celebrex and Bextra) where the manufacturer deliberately withheld information of harmful side effects? Or for instance a drug that was market that claimed to cure the common cold but was just a placebo (and maybe some addictive properties).

To sum up my question: should there be a regulatory organization that maintains the quality for the (shudders) common good, and if not, how would the above situations be handled?

In addition to the responses you have received so far, it should be noted that drug companies require repeat sales to stay in business. No one makes a profit on one-time sales. Thus there is no incentive to market ineffective or harmful products. Anyone that attempted this would be buried in flurry of lawsuits, in addition to the criminal liabilities for fraud that have been mentioned.

Also, remember that the drug companies are not the only ones with a reputation to protect. The entire chain of distribution, which includes physicians that prescribe or recommend medicines as well as the pharmacies and retail outlets that sell drugs, all will demand proof that a drug is safe and efficacious before promoting it.

In addition, few scientists and researchers are going to put their careers on the line by working on a drug known to be ineffective or harmful. It is difficult to recruit talented employees into dishonest businesses.

It is a mistake to think that the FDA "maintains the quality of products". They do not. While many products require an initial FDA approval, that normally consists of reviewing data generated by the manufacturer. From that point on, the quality of the millions of pills, tablets, powders and liquids that are produced and distributed every day is maintained by the producers, not the FDA.

Finally, can you provide some documentation or a source for the claim that manufacturers deliberately withheld information on side effects?

[dougclayton]

To sum up my question: should there be a regulatory organization that maintains the quality for the (shudders) common good, and if not, how would the above situations be handled?

As most people here have already said, the FDA as we know it would not exist in a laissez-faire society. However, there would likely be a food-and-drugs division of the police or DA's office that would investigate charges of fraud, as well as the few deliberate attempts at poisoning there might be. I suspect it would function very similarly to forensics labs, in that 1) it would contain scientists capable of understanding the issues involved, and 2) it would not act until there was evidence of a crime committed. Naturally, this is quite different than the FDA today.

In fact, that is probably the model for what today's regulatory agencies like the FCC, EPA, FDA, etc, would become in a free market: an extension of the crime lab. Broadcasting over someone else's frequency, dumping waste on someone else's property, and the above drug fraud can be too specialized for a "standard" police officer to be able to sort out the criminal/victim.

[acapier]

There's a good recent article (Drug Safety and the FDA, by Alex Epstein) on this at the ARI website that might interest you.