Replies

We tried letting corporations police themselves early on, and the resulting chaos and snake oil salesmen prompted the implementation of the FDA to begin with. Too many people are too easily taken in by unproven claims, and the temptation to cut corners is too strong. Who’s to say that companies might not start including stronger substances, or stop quality checking altogether. Without the incentive to follow the rules, too many people would be injured or sickened by bad products. I would suggest that regulating the content of comestibles for dangerous substances or proper quality would fall under protecting the general welfare, something the government is authorized to do.

That's largely a myth, much like the myth of the wildcat banks that necessitated the need for the Federal Reserve. Sure, they existed to some extent (and still do), but the claim is overblown. Now it is hard to compare then with now because of the medical revolution that has happened; technology has drastically improved. But since then, some non-government groups have also developed, like the AMA, which would fill the need for info. I will say that there is a role for government in protecting brand names from counterfeiters, but its a whole different ballgame to say that the market won't provide for a demand.

(http://www.mises.org/story/1805 , http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=272 - a bit too anti-government, but shows some history of the FDA and conversation on current approved drugs.)