37 votes

Do Libertarians want to eliminate the FDA?

A friend asked me how I felt about the government's role in controlling trans fats, arsenic, and other types of addictive drugs in foods. I try my best to represent the liberty movement well, so when he was asking me about who would then regulate poisons in our food, I told him that we should all have the liberty to ingest and do whatever we want with our bodies, such as smoking marijuana. And that companies would go bankrupt and lose millions of customers if they intentionally put poison in their drinks, just as people would start drifting away from Toyota if they kept intentionally cutting the brakes off of their fresh cars.

Even I'm not sure where I stand on this issue after I said that, and I think my position is kind of weak. Don't we kind of need some food regulation bureaucracy to check out the foods and drugs before it goes on the market? Because in real life, Americans do not have any time to research about everything they're eating, so they assume everything at the grocery store is safe. So it would take years for people to realize that a given product is extremely toxic and detrimental to the health. Thanks!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

My answer : Y E S

My answer : Y E S.

And I even know WHY and HOW it is not just POSSIBLE but also very DESIRABLE.

I could elaborate at lengths, but if only for a clue :

free markets + knowledge dissemination over the WWW = that's the HOW.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Any government agency is a

Any government agency is a monopoly on force.Without the FDA,private companies would have certification standard programs.
Much like UL (underwriters Laboratories). www.UL.COM
NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) www.NSF.org
Better Business Bureau www.BBB.org
There are a quite few more like these and without a government monopoly,there would be even more to fill the void.The big difference is companies have the freedom to choose to certify their products,they are not forced with threats of fines or imprisonment.

The American Gas Association.

Gas appliances all carry their Star. It's an insurance requirement also.

The much of Internet was physically build by Darpa but the protocols used where shared as proposed standards. The RFCs helped create order out of chaos.

Consumers report used to be a valuable resource.

Free includes debt-free!

The FDA is the biggest killer

that has been responsible for more death and suffering than all our wars combined and should surely be dismantled, and the sooner the better. I can point you to so many instances of this (and a little research will do the same for you) that it is quite shocking that anybody at all would not advocate their complete dismemberment. Their 18-year battle against Dr. Burzinski alone costs hundreds of thousands of lives a year. And many, many effective treatments and drugs that are available in other countries and have been for decades are outlawed here simply because they don't make the pharmaceutical companies enough money. Did you know that the FDA actually gets paid by the pharmaceutical companies every time they approve a drug? How's THAT for conflict of interest?

YES! And it should be a private label like the UL label

Please read Mrs Mary Ruwart's book, "HEALING OUR WORLD". There you will find most all libertarian positions explained in a clear headed and reasonable way.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Yes

Sell poison. Get sued. Go out of buisness.

Senator Peter Schiff 2016

We don't need no stinkin' FDA!

In a world without the FDA, food and drugs would come to market, and the marketplace would decide the best and worst. People right now put too much trust in FDA to protect them, and the list of recalls shows they really are not doing a good job. Factor in the rBST, GMO, etc. that the FDA allows in our food without labeling, and people should really think twice about the food they buy from the grocery store. Better customer awareness about the origin and composition of our food would take place in a free market. Not only that, but customers would be free to make informed choices about their food (organic v. non-organic, raw v. pasteurized) without government interference.

So where would the protection come from? Businesses would know they could not long get away with selling tainted or adulterated products without paying the price in lost sales or lawsuits. Currently the FDA provides some cover from lawsuits for harmful products, and the medical device manufacturers are looking to get even more. Currently there is a bill which would make it impossible to sue a medical device manufacturer for a bad product if the product was approved by the FDA, even if the product caused death. So, who is the FDA REALLY protecting?

No

The FDA needs to be eliminated because it does not regulate anything for our benefit. If anything, it allows companies to poison the populous legally. For example, Oxycontin, prescription drugs, GMO foods, products with fluoride in it, are ALL approved by the FDA. Prescription drugs are one of the worlds largest killers. GMO foods have health risks that we are not fully even aware of yet. Companies like Monsanto use their lobbying pull to push these products through and actually even change the patent laws, to be able to patent genetic modification. The point is, that it plays favorites, just like all the other agencies. On another note, specifically medicine, there are thousands of drugs waiting FDA approval that could save people's lives that are being driven away because of government cronyism. People are actually dying so these scumbags can corner the market and increase their revenues. Cannabis would erode much of the prescription medicine, cotton, food, oil, and reform the automobile industry, hence, why its illegal. The FDA is raiding raw milk facilities and raw milk farms for our "safety," costing small families and businesses a lot of money and pain. Certain drug companies have strongholds on certain medicines and work with insurance companies, partially funded through federal government spending and keep out better, cheaper, and more effective medicines. Its not whats right or wrong, its about monopolization and eliminating competition.

The regulation would fall into the market place... the root of your argument IS correct. It is not in a companies self interest to poison its consumers. Its in their self interest to keep you healthy, satisfied, and buying their products. To think that the FDA is only form of anything that could "regulate" such things completely lacks imagination or faith in humanity. We need to embrace the "I dont know" because what we do know is that what we're doing ain't working.

Competition, free markets, independent product certifiers, individual responsibility are what we need, not more centralized power

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Dismantle anything with initials

FDA CIA FBI NSA DHS DOJ CPS DOE ATF ABC NBC CBS FOX CNN FCC UN NATO AMA

DOT FEMA HUD

Natural Order

...

USA...?

Yep

USA represents the corporate United States. uSA represents our de jure Republic. So I say yes. Dismantle the USA and bring back our uSA as it was originally intended by our Founders.

Blessings )o(

IMO

The question resides in what is public: to freely endow by authentic choice and publish.

I am therefore unopposed to public agencies like the EPA when endowed by choice however once an agenda is mandated, the instruments of tyranny are established.

Subsequently I espouse prerogative governance where all taxation is abolished and public agency is funded by choice

Every public agency is

Every public agency is mandated... Because you cannot choose not to pay for it.

Currently

that is true.

Hopefully political governance however will evolve to such a model of free choice and earned prerogative

WAR ON HEALTH - The FDA's Cult of Tyranny

WAR ON HEALTH - The FDA's Cult of Tyranny

http://youtu.be/VibVIRsHnI0

Kathleen Gee's picture

Statement by Dr. Mary Ruwart, former LP presidential candidate

From the International Society for Individual Liberty: http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/death-regulation.html

Have you lost a loved one to breast cancer recently? If so, you probably wished with all your heart that your sister, mother, or wife had detected it earlier. Perhaps they would have - if the device that clinicians are calling "one of the most effective weapons against breast cancer" hadn't been banned from the US market by the FDA.

The Sensor Pad, developed in Decatur, Illinois, is simply two sealed plastic sheets with lubricant in between. When a woman or her doctor places the pad over her breast, friction is reduced, making lump detection easier. The FDA has refused to approve this simple medical device for over a decade, even though the product is sold in Japan, Singapore, Korea, and most West European countries. The reason? The FDA wants this $7 device to go through the same testing procedures that it demands for expensive pharmaceuticals. After such testing, the FDA will take up to six years to decide whether or not the device should be approved. Because drug manufacturers are required to spend much more time and money getting US approvals than offshore ones, Americans get new, life-saving drugs and devices years later than citizens of other countries - if they get them at all. ...

One of these new drugs denied to Americans was propranolol, the first Beta-blocker to be used extensively to treat angina and hypertension.

Approximately 10,000 Americans died needlessly every year for the three years it was against the law for their doctors to treat them with propranolol. Propranolol was finally approved in the US for minor uses in 1968, but was only approved in 1973 and 1976 for angina and hyper-tension respectively. The regulatory delay of this single drug may have been responsible for the death of more Americans than all other deaths from drugs in this century.

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan

Public Relations Consulting

You got lost right here: "Don't WE need..."

Maybe YOU need food police, I do NOT needyou deciding what I need on any issue.
Feel better? Good. The FDA are goons preventing you from accessing CURES - no one is allowed to even claim that water cures dehydration, so is that the k ind of "protection" you "need?" God granted you the power to govern your life. I am sorry you feel you "need" someone to take over that job for you, I hope they find a pill to make you all better.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Kathleen Gee's picture

List of current FDA recalls

Statists think we need government regulations to keep food and drugs safe. Food and drugs are heavily regulated by the FDA, right? So that means our food and drugs are 100% safe and effective now, right?

Erm, not so much. Here are the 10 pages of current recalls of foods alone, from the FDA's own list:

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm

The desire for regulations is a reflection of "magical thinking." Magical thinkers believe that if you outlaw something, it magically ceases to exist.

Unsafe food and drugs will never cease to exist as long as fallible humans are involved in their creation, manufacture, distribution, or consumption. Food and drugs will never be 100% safe, ever. About a quarter of a million people die in the U.S. annually because of appropriately prescribed, regulated medications.

How many more are killed because they don't have access to effective, safe medications, therapies and treatments that aren't FDA approved? Millions.

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan

Public Relations Consulting

FDA

remember that the free market can regulate its self. Consumers are free to organize into groups, ask food suppliers to allow checking of their products etc. Consumers can voluntarily donate, suppliers can put stamps of approval and consumers can buy food with said stamps at a slightly higher premium than an unstamped comptitor.

The great thing about the above is that if one organization becomes corrupted, people lose faith in it, then another competing agency can arise. Maybe that agency is only around long enough for the first agency to fix its problems, or maybe everyone migrates to the new organization.

The thing is that the free market WILL regulate itself. Where there are issues, People will rise up in voluntary organizations, they will test products, independant research will be done, and the free market will analyze the research.

With the FDA all government is force. EVERYONE is FORCED to believe their research. When the FDA becomes corrupt, it still has the force of government. There is NO contradicting it. There is NO creating another organization. There is NO free market in its decisisions.

Now all of that being said, I have completely ignored the constituitonality issues with an FDA. It should be an "Iowa food and drug adminstration" or a Texas FDA. At least if the states run the programs there is still something to compare any given states research with other states. There is NO specific enumeration in Article I section 8 that gives the federal government authority to deal with food or drugs. So per the 10th amendment that responsibility is left to the states or to the people.

07 Daytona 675
Don't Tread on Me!

fda legalizes poisons already

the fda does not have the ppls best interest, it has legalized hfc, aspartame, and genetically modified foods. it is as corrupt as any govt organization.

End the FDA!

The FDA is about suppressing competition for established industries, not about safety in food or drugs. From my line of work, I know more about the "D" part of the FDA than I do the "F" part, but I'm sure it works the same way. Big pharma loves the FDA because the only way that you can get a new drug to market in the US is to perform a randomized clinical trial to show "safety" and "efficacy", which costs an arm and a leg. Thus, there are only a handful of companies in the world that can afford to make new drugs, and they have been in the business for years. The only way to do a pharmaceutical startup these days is to take out a crap ton of debt, and hope that your product looks profitable enough where one of the big companies will buy you at a price that lets you pay off the debt and still have something left over. The effect of this is that fewer new drugs come to market than otherwise would, especially niche drugs that are very important for people with rare conditions, but unlikely to ever be sold outside of that small group of people.

Anybody afraid of living in a world where pharmaceutical companies are free to poison people should realize that that is the very situation that exists today, under the FDA's watch. Google the phrase "too big to nail" and see what comes up. The FDA's enforcement is patchy at best, and the fines that they levy are mere speeding tickets to these multi-billion dollar behemoths. Meanwhile, the fines are adding to the government's coffers while doing nothing to make the defrauded consumer whole. Every time big pharma comes out with a somewhat inferior product, they win, because the fines are often less than their net revenue from the product; the state wins, because they extract money from the fines; and the consumer gets nothing.

In summary, the whole system is just bat-$hit insane.

Monstanto only gets away with it because there is an EPA

Monopoly.

So Thomas Jefferson would be against having counties or states compete to provide the most efficient productive and pro liberty form of the EPA? You guys need to look into this stuff a little further, the idea that a man could put a product in a store, which is not verified to be safe for consumption is pretty ridiculous and silly. Buying from a private individual, that is different than placing products for babies to eat in a store. You could do this or use civilian regulation such as law suits, but at that point your baby is already sick. Please, anybody, give me ONE reason why the "county EPA" would be a "corrosive" form of government. The EPA sucks because it is run like a monopoly, if the free market was incorporated the “county EPA” would most likely hear no cries of foul play by libertarians.

You just got PAULED!

Libertarians

are under the impression that the private sector would step in and handle this with government out of the way...and probably do a better job.

Example....supplements are not regulated by the FDA...so what pops up? www.consumerlab.com. Which tests different supplements and posts on which one's contain what they should....if they are laced with heavy metals etc. Consumer labs business depends on the fact that its providing the people with truthful information....they know as soon as they screw up there goes their reputation and the company is destroyed. The federal government doesn't operate under these types of regulations. ...they operate under a forced monopoly of the inspection industry.

It's like GMO labeling...everyone is so concerned to get products labeled for GMOs....well what if everyone wasn't depending on the government to do this? We'd rely on a private company that puts its reputation on the line that if a product is stamped with their "GMO free" label...it better be GMO free otherwise they're going out of business...fast. Situation would probably have already been taken care of by now.

The European Medicine Agency or Underwriters Laboratory...

could be models to mimic. We can't simply have no clearinghouse for food and drugs but I would agree that the FDA is not the way to go.

Whatever organization(s) we choose would have to be held accountable and will make mistakes.

yep! this libertarian does.

we'd all be a lot safer if we'd buy direct from the farms and prepare it ourselves. being free requires sacrifice.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Your private grocer can set

Your private grocer can set up its own standards before buying foods.
Problem solved.

Southern Agrarian

This Libertarian does.

We can still have safe, healthy food too.
A food inspection business/s could be funded in the same way many fire departments all over the country are; with donations.
The money would be used to pay the inspectors and the food producer access to the plant for inspection.
I imagine that all food companies would allow access for inspection for free to show they have nothing to hide. If you think your donation is going to waste, tell the inspectors to shape-up,
or you will vote with your dollar (stop donating) and the inspectors will be seeing a pay cut.
This model could be used to replace many government agencies.

The whole government regulation of the food and medicine

industries is a complete failure. The net effect is simply higher prices and questionable quality.

The current system is not about safety. It is about rigging the market to favor the few to the detriment of the majority. We have plenty of incompetent medical professionals and dangerous drugs, and the laws prohibit some effective alternatives.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Remember 'The Jungle.' Progressives still bring it up

Upron Sinclair wrote a completely fictional story about meat packing plants in irder to draw attention to workers ib a Marxist classwarfare scenario, but the public instead concentrated on the food and demanded governmnet intervention. Thus the orecursor of the FDA was spawned. Off of a fictional work by an alarmist communist.

**Sounds like the situation today, right?

Burzynski the movie (Full Version)

For a glimpse into the evils of the FDA watch this (must see) movie documentary, it should give you an idea of just how much they have the best interests of the public at heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zBBfN5mQa8