This another in a long string of failures in generic regulations that underscore broader problems pertaining to regulation in the US healthcare system. There's this theoretical land of regulation, what the consumers and citizens are encouraged to presume, and what actually happens.
It's been common, for instance, for people to repeatedly be berated for paying more for name brand. Studies in fact, of the public health economics of it, why people pay more for name brands, trying to understand it as if there are deficiencies in consumer reasoning.
This is despite repeated problems with generic suppliers overseas, mainly India, diluting medications. This was uncovered, problems were corrected, and then it happened again.
And now this.
So who exactly is the rational purchaser? The person who buys generics under the assumption that they are chemically equivalent, or the skeptic who prefers to have transparency about where their medications are coming from, and purchases brand names?
My point isn't to berate the FDA as incompetent -- I think they're overburdened -- but I do think there are broader problems involving a disconnect between how we discuss regulatory systems in the US and what actually happens. To me, this is just the tip of the iceberg. My personal opinion is the FDA needs to focus solely on this kind of problem -- ensuring drugs are what they are labeled to be -- with maybe some substantial research into effectiveness -- and to drop its regulatory role as drug police.