Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#71

Post by vkou »

chcknsammich wrote: post #41
davidhyde wrote: post #2

So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.

The real root of the problem is probably that the FDA is also a monopoly.

Do you seriously think that we'd have fewer of these issues if companies could shop around for the cheapest & most lax regulator?

If you believe that, please explain to me why the BBB exists, and what positive social purpose it serves. It is the poster child for a toothless opt-in 'regulator', and it is worse than useless at dealing with malfeasance by its members. (But it's pretty good at collecting membership dues.)

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#72

Post by ncmncm »

mikestew wrote: post #10

It was over seventy years, after it was decided lead in fuel was a bad idea, before it was banned in road-going vehicles. [0] Keep that in mind when some politician or business owner goes on about "bureaucrats". Because "bureaucrats" to them means "someone who stands between me and more profits". "Bureaucrats" to you should mean "people that make sure this shit gets enforced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyl…

Likewise, in the '40s, paint manufacturers promised to phase out lead in paint "voluntarily". In 1973 it was finally outlawed, with nothing like a beginning of a phase-out in the interim.

1973 was a low point for trust of fatcat industry, coinciding with revelation of Watergate abuses. It is hard to believe any new such regulation could be enforced today.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#73

Post by jostmey »

davidhyde wrote: post #2

So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.

Pretty much true given my knowledge. It is probably time to disband the FDA. That's the easy part. But the FDA serves a vital purpose and a new agency would be required to replace it

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#74

Post by dsfyu404ed »

mikestew wrote: post #10

It was over seventy years, after it was decided lead in fuel was a bad idea, before it was banned in road-going vehicles. [0] Keep that in mind when some politician or business owner goes on about "bureaucrats". Because "bureaucrats" to them means "someone who stands between me and more profits". "Bureaucrats" to you should mean "people that make sure this shit gets enforced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyl…

>Keep that in mind when some politician or business owner goes on about "bureaucrats". Because "bureaucrats"

You rarely hear even the small government politicians rail against bureaucrats because being able to use their influence withing the bureaucracy for favors (some more ethical than others) is a source of power for them. They may complain about the priorities of the bureaucracy (e.g "we should be funding X not Y") but they don't lament the existence of the administrative arm of government.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#75

Post by dsfyu404ed »

openasocket wrote: post #57
merpnderp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When these regulators stop "retiring" to cushy jobs in the industry, I'll believe it's the politicians and not the regulators openly taking bribes in the form of future "jobs". An easy fix would be for congress to pass a law preventing regulators from working in the industry they regulated, but then the politicians wouldn't also receive those same cushy "jobs".

While I agree with the sentiment, keep in mind it's a little more complicated than that. People who work on some category of regulations can only find relevant work in the government or in that sector of industry. Making it impossible to move from the government to an industry job effectively traps people for life in their one job unless they change careers. As a concrete example, my fiance is a lawyer working in env…

The fact that nobody in the gun industry wants to touch them with a 10ft pole hasn't stopped the ATF from hiring people who know how guns work.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#76

Post by ncmncm »

mikestew wrote: post #43
dekalbcountyman wrote: post #33

so stop putting baby powder on my nuts during the summer? :(

Baby powder is fine, given that I don't know that one can even buy talc powder anymore. It's all made with corn starch now. Go right ahead and bread those nuts (verifying that it's non-talc breading, just to be safe).

It's not all corn starch now.

Talc is still big business.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#77

Post by charonn0 »

asdf21 wrote: post #64
davidhyde wrote: post #2

So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.

Right, so government cannot be trusted to enforce consumer protections and it needs to be privatized.

I don't think privatization will improve matters.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#78

Post by AchieveLife »

Invictus0 wrote: post #40
vkou wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not so simple as good and crooked. How can you even traceback which politician gave which authority to what regulator, It doesn't matter who gave authority to the regulator, what matters is whether or not they are currently responsible for that regulator, and are doing a good job of it. There's a congressional committee on pretty much every department under the sun. Follow the chain of command. > and how can y…

"Steve is our best salesman but he keeps burning popcorn in the microwave. Joe Janitor just put in his resume: I don't know if he's better with the popcorn but let's fire Steve anyway."

that's a straw man argument.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#79

Post by m463 »

chcknsammich wrote: post #41
davidhyde wrote: post #2

So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.

The real root of the problem is probably that the FDA is also a monopoly.

maybe it is that checks and balances need checks and balances.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#80

Post by chmaynard »

Someday, scholars will write the long, sordid history of how industrial chemicals have been virtually unregulated for many decades. Thousands of novel compounds have been introduced into the environment in enormous quantities without any serious clinical studies of their long-term effects on human health and the health of the natural world.
Post reply on HN