Yeah sure. They won't establish cigarettes as controlled substances but will go after vitamins. I guess the probability of all this happening depends on what universe you live in.
The WTO is a lot more than an NGO.
Whatever. They still can't tell us what to do. Witness the Canadian softwood debate.
It was, in that respect, an unbiased sample, something of which you appear incapable of recognizing.
Oh, c'mon. I showed you 4 million hits that Karl Rove is gay. Do you believe it now? If June of last year was wrong, when will they come for our vitamins?
There is nothing the FDA does that the market couldn't do, other than provide cover for the producers..
You continue to show us how little you understand about the FDA and its relationship with industry.
Without them they don't have jobs.
So if the FDA doesn't do the bidding of industry, industry is going to go away and then the bureaucrats won't have jobs? I'm left speechless by your logic....
No, price regulation is the principle culprit.
The FDA did nothing to help these producers to maintain their margins? I thought that was their job.
It consolidated the market very nicely.
Unbelieveable. You couldn't possibly be more misinformed.
Are you asserting that other artificial sweeteners don't exist?
Now you're taking on an issue that you are truly unprepared to debate. The FDA banned saccharine despite the pleas of industry and consumers because of faulty studies conducted by the toxic terrorists. This case is where that term came from and is why watchdog groups like Citizens for the integrity in science got started. If the FDA were really about protecting industry this would not have happened. And please don't try and sell that crap about other artificial sweeteners colluding with the FDA to make it happen. I know far too many people intimately involved in that issue and recognize what kind of paranoia it takes to believe that nonsense.
The FDA still sits on drugs while their patents run out killing the entire R&D investment the company has made. If you're crazy theories were true, this would not be happening.
Small companies cannot afford to enter the market alone SO THEY MUST SELL OUT to big companies who can afford market entry.
Please stop trying to BS me. Most pharma companies will not buy a start-up until they pass FDA. In some cases they form partnerships along the way to help spread the risk. Yet, there are many, many companies that do it on their own and have the technology and people to attract private funding. They don't always sell out and can sign distribution agreements with the big pharmaceuticals if necessary. Your original assertion was that the FDA serves to limit competition. I say that the number of start ups attracting vast amounts of capital from private sources proves you are wrong..again.
Such a system could actually provide better statistical information and limit total liability compared to a nationwide introduction.
Liability is just one of many issues being faced. I doubt you would simplify things by localizing regulations. To me, this sounds like nothing more than an opportunity to create more regulations, not less, by allowing even more politicians and special interests into the fray. The end result will be less capital for the companies who need it to expand. Liability reform needs to come at the federal level.
Symptoms are not the disease.
What are you saying here? Are you claiming that companies are not valued based on current and future earnings, products in the pipeline and competent management?
"Millions of people" don't control large blocks of voting stock.
So now you're saying that the FDA exists to protect and serve institutional investors? If so, I say again, they're doing a lousy job because the multiples of drug companies are lagging the averages and that can't make institutional investors any happier than individual investors. Maybe, like me, they want their investments back from the FDA. My investment in Merck got killed by their decision on Vioxx. I'm on a roller coaster ride with Elan waiting for approvals. What the hell are they doing to me?
I've qualified product for the USDA as well. No you don't.
Of course. You know more than me because you've worked in the medical device business, did ISO 9001 compliances and wrote a book. I should thank you however, for offering your point of view because it will provide me great entertainment value when I share it with clients from Pfizer, Merck, P&G, Lilly and Schering Plough. I know our contacts at the FDA will also find humor in your perception of the relationship between them and industry.
Well, looky here! What do you know, a drug company trying to use the FDA to ban a superior treatment. Who knew?
I'm not bothering with the rest of your garbage. If you knew the behavior of drug companies in the pesticide business (something about which I know a fair bit), you'd have been a damned sight more circumspect. As it is, as far as I'm concerned, you're just another shill.