The author should maybe consider that there are some possible downsides to a totally free market in food and drug products, and in particular look at the historical events which led to the creation and empowering of the FDA. e.g. "The Sulfanilamide Disaster" [0], which killed 100 people because a company used antifreeze to create a liquid form of their drug (and it would have killed more if not for FDA efforts to track down shipments and recover the drug).
The shortage is certainly a terrible thing. It also would be a terrible thing if contaminated formula killed a bunch of babies. It may be that we have not struck the right policy balance between a free market and regulatory controls, but this screed is far from a nuanced reconsideration of the role of the FDA.
Specifically they should look at the many times baby formula has been adulterated with literal poison and the horrors that nestle commits and then ask themselves if they really don't want some sort of safety.
Remember, this shortage is because a brand was selling dangerous formula and had to take it off store shelves
How about we bust up any company holding more than 20% of the market share for baby formula? And then we bust up any company holding 20% of the inputs for that? Recurse until finished.
Then, when one company gets contaminated, we only lose a maximum of 20% of the market.
What happened to the FDA? Why would they block a healthier option? This must be incompetence or corruption.
European formula is healthier than the dorito mix formula sold in the US. I was shocked to see that some have corn syrup and high oleic sunflower oils as the first ingredient. If I was a parent in the US I'd be looking for an underground formula railroad.
"The FDA does not exist to get products on the market. It exists to keep products off the market. They have no idea how to get a product to market; that’s just not what they do."
"So what they are doing, in an emergency, is allowing, out of the kindness of their hearts, for manufacturers to apply for the ability to temporarily import their products once the FDA explicitly approves them, on a case-by-case basis. When the problem was something completely irrelevant like listing ingredients in the wrong order, the FDA plans to (eventually) approve such an application, which will be good until November. If the issue is a trivial argument over something other than labeling, well, tough."
I highly recommend reading the whole article. It's a really well written "rant". (I say "rant" because you can hear the anger in the writing, but it is well researched and written regardless.)
Once American families get access to European formula, they will demand similar levels of quality from American producers, or parallel import from Europe directly.
American manufacturers will need to do better than releasing junk products, which will impact profit margins.
50% of infant formula in the USA is purchased by the US Government and distributed to welfare recipients. Industry and Government are aligned in ensuring formula is as cheap as possible.
>If I was a parent in the US I'd be looking for an underground formula railroad
Yep - we found a company in Florida that was importing formula from Germany at a reasonable premium. Keep in mind that this was 4 years ago, so I don't know the state of that pipeline today.
FDA catches conspiracy to recklessly endanger (as in quite possibly murder) a huge number of infants over a vast geographic area. Perpetrators caught then not given sufficient help bypassing FDA procedures nor a reduction in oversight as they resume production and filling out paperwork they previously falsified.
Other competitors apparently non-existent probably thanks to free market forces and this competitor who used illegal methods to have lower costs than legal operation. I.e. bad batch costs saved by falsifying paperwork.
FDA hesitant to allow import of these products as foreign production would be out of its jurisdiction and the lowest international bidder is presumably saving more money than the factory they just closed, somehow..
Can the FDA single out specific EU countries and criticize their regulators or would it face massive pressure to approve all countries the US has a cozy relationship with that have an infant formula?
I.e. the UK which has no regulatory history relevant to it's current restructuring as a non-EU Nation. Should thousands of US infants be among the first to iron out defects in a changing system for regulating potentially deadly products that is focused on being more cost effective for the UK?
> Other competitors apparently non-existent probably thanks to free market forces
The article goes into the reasons for market consolidation. To summarize: there's a combination of steep regulatory barriers (which inherently favor big, established businesses with large lobbying and compliance budgets), single-supplier state purchase contracts that account for roughly half of all baby formula purchases, and effectively cutting off imports. The market forces are downstream of government action, and the market in question is anything but free.
The post started off with a seemingly reasonable yet obviously naïve example of flaws in the process, then goes on a rant where it reframes every tweet by the FDA in a gross mischaracterization.
The funniest thing here is that there would be very few people in the world that would count any international trade as a part of the "free market". So any restriction placed by the US government on importing any products would implicitly not have any effect on the "free market" that most people refer to, and most people that would drool over the "free market" would also be the same people to decry any movement towards globalism.
But even then, why wouldn't these European manufacturer just print a second set of labels for selling their product to the US, if it's just a "labeling requirement"? Sounds like a very fishy claim.
If the global warming thing is as bad as some of the scarier predictions are predicting, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission might steal that title from them eventually.
allturtles|3 years ago
The shortage is certainly a terrible thing. It also would be a terrible thing if contaminated formula killed a bunch of babies. It may be that we have not struck the right policy balance between a free market and regulatory controls, but this screed is far from a nuanced reconsideration of the role of the FDA.
[0]: https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/The-Sulfanil...
mrguyorama|3 years ago
Remember, this shortage is because a brand was selling dangerous formula and had to take it off store shelves
bsder|3 years ago
Then, when one company gets contaminated, we only lose a maximum of 20% of the market.
Maximally efficient is minimally robust.
bkdbkd|3 years ago
They equate "Ensuring any recalled products remains off market" with "keeping formula off the market".
As you said, there are many cases in which it is far wiser stop to ensure safety, than to move forward with risk.
Well said.
onesafari|3 years ago
European formula is healthier than the dorito mix formula sold in the US. I was shocked to see that some have corn syrup and high oleic sunflower oils as the first ingredient. If I was a parent in the US I'd be looking for an underground formula railroad.
MR4D|3 years ago
"The FDA does not exist to get products on the market. It exists to keep products off the market. They have no idea how to get a product to market; that’s just not what they do."
"So what they are doing, in an emergency, is allowing, out of the kindness of their hearts, for manufacturers to apply for the ability to temporarily import their products once the FDA explicitly approves them, on a case-by-case basis. When the problem was something completely irrelevant like listing ingredients in the wrong order, the FDA plans to (eventually) approve such an application, which will be good until November. If the issue is a trivial argument over something other than labeling, well, tough."
I highly recommend reading the whole article. It's a really well written "rant". (I say "rant" because you can hear the anger in the writing, but it is well researched and written regardless.)
ParksNet|3 years ago
American manufacturers will need to do better than releasing junk products, which will impact profit margins.
50% of infant formula in the USA is purchased by the US Government and distributed to welfare recipients. Industry and Government are aligned in ensuring formula is as cheap as possible.
reedjosh|3 years ago
Labeling? I mean that's the assinine reason the FDA is giving anyway.
> This must be incompetence or corruption.
Probably that and a bureaucracy that's unwilling to relinquish its power in any way. Really pretty disgusting.
> the dorito mix formula sold in the US.
I couldn't agree more, and I love the wording. The FDA is hardly `protecting` us here.
dan_quixote|3 years ago
Yep - we found a company in Florida that was importing formula from Germany at a reasonable premium. Keep in mind that this was 4 years ago, so I don't know the state of that pipeline today.
bozhark|3 years ago
rgrieselhuber|3 years ago
yakak|3 years ago
FDA catches conspiracy to recklessly endanger (as in quite possibly murder) a huge number of infants over a vast geographic area. Perpetrators caught then not given sufficient help bypassing FDA procedures nor a reduction in oversight as they resume production and filling out paperwork they previously falsified.
Other competitors apparently non-existent probably thanks to free market forces and this competitor who used illegal methods to have lower costs than legal operation. I.e. bad batch costs saved by falsifying paperwork.
FDA hesitant to allow import of these products as foreign production would be out of its jurisdiction and the lowest international bidder is presumably saving more money than the factory they just closed, somehow..
Can the FDA single out specific EU countries and criticize their regulators or would it face massive pressure to approve all countries the US has a cozy relationship with that have an infant formula?
I.e. the UK which has no regulatory history relevant to it's current restructuring as a non-EU Nation. Should thousands of US infants be among the first to iron out defects in a changing system for regulating potentially deadly products that is focused on being more cost effective for the UK?
pjscott|3 years ago
The article goes into the reasons for market consolidation. To summarize: there's a combination of steep regulatory barriers (which inherently favor big, established businesses with large lobbying and compliance budgets), single-supplier state purchase contracts that account for roughly half of all baby formula purchases, and effectively cutting off imports. The market forces are downstream of government action, and the market in question is anything but free.
dariusj18|3 years ago
The funniest thing here is that there would be very few people in the world that would count any international trade as a part of the "free market". So any restriction placed by the US government on importing any products would implicitly not have any effect on the "free market" that most people refer to, and most people that would drool over the "free market" would also be the same people to decry any movement towards globalism.
But even then, why wouldn't these European manufacturer just print a second set of labels for selling their product to the US, if it's just a "labeling requirement"? Sounds like a very fishy claim.
kazinator|3 years ago
newaccount2021|3 years ago
[deleted]
baggy_trough|3 years ago
pjscott|3 years ago
bozhark|3 years ago
Most of it is completely disjointed from reality.
But please, keep pushing for the free market fallacy.
Lines such as: [the FDA only keeps stuff off shelves!] is quite naive at best. That’s _exactly_ what the FDA was and is for.
This reads like a first year business kid trying to sound involved.
reedjosh|3 years ago
Which I'm quite certain was the author's point.
What's yours other than to mock the author?