Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Consumer Reports vs the FDA

If Consumer Reports (a free market watchdog for product safety and quality) had the track record of the FDA, they would have been out of business a long time ago!!!!

The FDA is not subject to the market forces of public opinion because it is a government instituted monopoly. If it were a private free-market venture, it's terrible reputation and track record on public safety would have destroyed it a long time ago.

Many cases of corruption have been documented, and their inspectors proven less than competent (recent egg recall). Special interests hired and put on the payroll, creating a conflict of interests that endanger the health of every American. Non-fermented Soy and Canola oil are only two examples of failures of the FDA, causing the safety of our food supply and pharmaceutical products to fall well behind that of other nations.

Also, the FDA is becoming known for restricting products from the market for reasons far removed from product safety, but rather special interest pandering or consistently
enforcing the government agenda of the day .

By contrast, Consumer Reports protects its reputation by strict adherence to truth in product testing and is largely immune from special interests and corruption because they rely on the purity of their reputation for their entire existence. If it had the reputation of the FDA, it would not exist.


Consumer Reports Slams FDA
Consumer Reports today slammed the FDA's decision to allow the risky diabetes drug Avandia to remain on the market.

The agency "falls short of its counterpart across the ocean, the European Medicines Agency, which decided Avandia was too risky" to remain available, a Consumer Reports editor wrote in a blog post.

Breaking the FDA Monopoly

Many readers might consider my proposal to be quite radical, but it simply returns us to the FDA’s role prior to 1962: certifying that a drug is safe.

No comments:

Post a Comment