The FDA and their incompetence

Do you smoke cigarettes? Imagine if there were such a thing as a cigarette that didn't include all the health hazards. How many lives could would be saved by inventing such a thing? Well, guess what. There IS such a thing, but the government doesn't want you to have it.

The other week, The House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing the Food & Drug Administration to regulate all tobacco products. Good thing, right? Wrong. 

The "E-Cigarette" was introduced in 2004 by Chinese company Ruyan. E-cigarettes produce water vapor containing nicotine and the food additive propylene glycol. The tip of the battery-powered "cigarette" lights up when a user sucks on it, and the vapor looks like smoke, but it dissipates immediately and contains none of the toxins and carcinogens that are generated when tobacco burns. Unfortunately, the FDA thinks that if the e-cigarette was to hit the market, it'd only encourage people to smoke more, aiding them of their bad habits. Let's not forget that this is the same FDA that has approved nicotine gum, patches, sprays and inhalers.

How ridiculous is this?

Once again, the FDA proves itself incompetent and damaging. We would be far better off with the FDA gone. For those unfamiliar with these views, it may sound a bit extreme and shocking. But let's think about it logically: if the FDA ceased to exist, all sorts of benefactors would hit the market... FAST. The FDA's approval process takes an extremely long time, sometimes years. More lives are lost in the time span of the FDA approving a drug than if they were to approve something quickly. Some would argue that the absence of the FDA would result in a staggering increase of dangerous and life threatening drugs hitting the market. Nonsense. If you were a company manufacturing a drug, would YOU risk that sort of lawsuit? Of course you wouldn't. You're out for a to make money, not to hurt people. People benefitting from your product would be a good thing for you. You'd want to manufacture a product of the best quality, in hopes of gaining a profit and in hopes that your customers would return. 

Granted, a few life threatening drugs may enter the market, just as they do today. However, once the public sees that a particular drug is life threatening, that company is doomed and subject to a lawsuit. It's in the company's best interest to insure safety.

The government feels as if it knows what's good and bad for us, better than you and I do. The government should allow us to be responsible for ourselves. Nobody is going to like out for me like I look out for myself, and I don't need a nanny. 

Who knows? A cure for cancer may already be out there... it just hasn't been approved. If you were a terminally ill cancer patient, would you take the risk? I would.

EDIT: I posted this somewhere else... this was one of the responses I got:

"I actually agreed with you up until you started ranting about all the benefits of not having the FDA. That's just crazy. If it weren't for the FDA, company's would get away with murder. And you mentioned "a few life-threatening drugs" like that's something harmless. Those are lives you're talking about. Besides, the FDA does much more than just approve drugs"

My response:

My point was MORE lives are LOST due to LATE approval, as opposed to an EARLY APPROVAL for a harmful drug.

If a harmful drug is approved early, the side effect is nipped in the butt quickly. If there are deaths, there are few bc people realize it quickly.

If there are LIFE SAVING drugs that take YEARS for approval, HUNDREDS and possibly THOUSANDS of people would die WAITING for those drugs.

Yes the FDA does more than approve drugs. They do approve food as well. But it's the same concept. Companies have an incentive to provide you with quality food, because they want you to come back. They aren't going to put food out there that's gonna kill somebody. Why would they do that?

You say they'd "get away with murder"... they're not TRYING to murder anybody, lol. They're trying to make a profit. AND if somebody does die from their product, they'd be SUED and their company would crumble.

Their response: 

"It's not that simple. Do you remember Ripped Fuel? It was a vitamin that was sold over the counter at GNC's nationwide. Had the FDA not gone back and re-evaluated it, it would have never been taken off the shelves. We now know Ripped Fuel is a dangerous steroid, linked with all sorts of side effects, health hazards, and temporary insanity. What if the FDA wasn't around?

Have you ever read about what our country was before the FDA? Companies would advertise their products as being capable of something that it simply couldn't. A simple false advertisement threat is very easy to get around (Companies still get around it to this day). Did you know homosexuality was once considered a disorder and they even had pills people could take to overcome this? 

And besides, if it takes the drug companies years to develop a pill, we can't expect the FDA to have it approved in a week. It just doesn't work that way. I see what you mean about the extensive delays, but I actually think less people are killed now than the # of people which would be killed if the FDA wasn't around.

Who would blow the whistle on all these recalls of beef/ peanut butter, etc?"

Mine:

"Private research companies and non profit think tanks (even profitable companies for that matter), could take the role of the FDA. However, rather than forcing a recall, they can provide the dietary information necessary to an individual's decision (not saying the dietary information wouldn't be provided anyways, it's in the companies' best interest).

Which super markets and nutrition stores do the best and make more of a profit? The ones that sell organic foods and quality supplements. It's the store's responsibility to look out for its customers, and the individual's responsibility to be aware of what they're consuming.

I understand what you're saying... the whole recall thing for things like Ripped Fuel is a complex thing to dodge. All I can say is that sooner or later, this would've came up. With the elimination of the FDA, a market is created to provide the same information that the FDA once provided. The difference is, the FDA isn't competing with anybody and FORCES their conclusions upon the public. A private institution would have to compete with others and would allow you to make your own decisions. 

If we had 200 different FDA-like institutions (composed of both profitable and non-profits), the competition to increase research and do a more efficient job would run rampant, thus making technological and nutritional/health advancements speed up."

Theirs: 

"I know this may sound crazy but...

I trust the government more than private run companies (sometimes). I only say that because if the FDA disbanded like you said, I could really picture private companies being bought or sold to "help" a product pass inspections. You'd see a lot of the mess that's happening on Wall Street now. But if the government is running the show, at least you know they're not being financially motivated. The US government is already the richest "company" in the world"

My final post: 

"mmm...

No offense but it's pretty naive to say that the government isn't financially motivated. They go about it in a different way, though. They're money is handed to them from us... they don't have to earn it. Therefor the result of their financial motivations means "spending the least possible on the least expensive products", whereas a private company has to EARN the money it gets. The way they earn it is by providing a good product. 

And I'd argue that the Wall Street business going on now has A LOT to do with government intervention and the government butting their noses in the economy. The government and the economy should be separate, somewhat. Right now, you have subsidization and favors being exchanged. 

But anyways... all comes down to what you personally believe. I put my trust in private enterprise and the free market."