Comments on: The New cGMP Regulated Industry: Friend or Foe? http://blog.bodybuilding.com/deserusan/2009/06/03/the-new-cgmp-regulated-industry-friend-or-foe/ Ex uno disce omnes Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:30:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=0.32 by: Zylonet http://blog.bodybuilding.com/deserusan/2009/06/03/the-new-cgmp-regulated-industry-friend-or-foe/#comment-10403432 Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:23:36 +0000 http://blog.bodybuilding.com/deserusan/2009/06/03/the-new-cgmp-regulated-industry-friend-or-foe/#comment-10403432 --Ultimately, the FDA is empowered to protect the consumers and to offer guidance to pharma, the food industry, and the dietary supplement industry. Politics aside, the new cGMP’s are here because the vast majority of supplement firms have been somewhat resistant to implementing proper quality control which would benefit the consumer and ultimately their long term vitality in the evolving regulatory environment. -- Dan, Your posts are missed. Unfortunately, every time you venture into issues of economics you demonstrate that your specialization lies elsewhere. Given the need for a division of labor, this is nothing to be ashamed of. However, you are clearly wrong and your positions are indefensible against basic logic. The FDA may be empowered, but it's mission is not what you assume. Government agencies are monopolies and they act like them: the mission doesn't matter once competition is gone. Therefore, food and quality protection is highly subordinated to ensuring market stasis and salary gains for FDA member employees. Unfortunately, government monopolies are not only efficient but exceptionally dangerous institutions. Every action by the FDA is backed by the power of state guns, state prisons and the state judiciary. Make no mistake, when Ma Bell owned the phones, they were never going to threaten you with pistols and steal your freedom. The FDA has no qualms to make threats and will gladly steal years from your life for engaging in voluntary, peaceful exchange. Your statement that the FDA needed to regulated quality control is complete hogwash. The FDA is taking more control because they can. The employees of the FDA are entrepreneurial. By expanding power and scope more high paying jobs are created, more careers made and more influence assured. Moreover, given that the FDA is a monopoly, those new high salary jobs don't require much work. After all, when the mission fails, and people die from contamination, no organization is present to replace FDA. In effect, FDA employees are only incented to find ways to keep their jobs, not to actually work. This last part, when matched to the ability to arrest, is fundamental to understanding the dangers of the central authority. When you say that consumers will benefit from FDA regulation, you burden yourself too much. You are suggesting something that has never happened and never will happen: a state-run monopoly actually producing good without greater negative. As Jefferson quipped, “ Were we to be directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread” - as shall prove with quality control. Now that you have Central Authority command, if you want to create a higher standard, you cannot. If you want to create a new quality standard, using new metrics, you cannot. Innovation is dead. Consumer dictated choices are gone. All choice will be ruled by the lowest common denominator at FDA. Far more intelligent, and far more responsible, would be a voluntary system of compliance with the FDA regulations. Enable the product manufacturer/marketer to determine the relative benefits of adhering to state-controlled monopolistic regulations. Enable those who turn from regulation to choose a system wherein they mark their bottles, “this product is not regulated for quality control by the FDA.” In the end, you should advocate that we should all be free; free to enjoy our lives and free to exchange voluntary exchange. All of those who have invited the FDA into this industry have done so for their short-term financial gain. They have determined that increased regulation means increased “barriers to entry” which means reduced competition. What they don't know is that a regulated market has a greatly reduced upside. CGMPs are just the beginning for the FDA. Those hungry employees will see virgin fields of opportunity; opportunity to control the lives of others while earning $105,000/year with a guaranteed pension. Since you are such an intelligent man, you might like the economics of von Mises and the Austrian School. You can find a ton of resources the Mises Institutes. A great adjunct is the “Broken Window Fallacy,” a tremendous treatise on unintended consequences. You may not like much of what they say, but they are certainly the sages when it comes to understanding the criminality of the state. The solution was never to subject us all to monopoly; life is more than a binary choice; more than a false dichotomy. Disaster awaits; make as much as you can now. In tens years this industry will be neutered. –Ultimately, the FDA is empowered to protect the consumers and to offer guidance to pharma, the food industry, and the dietary supplement industry. Politics aside, the new cGMP’s are here because the vast majority of supplement firms have been somewhat resistant to implementing proper quality control which would benefit the consumer and ultimately their long term vitality in the evolving regulatory environment. –

Dan,

Your posts are missed. Unfortunately, every time you venture into issues of economics you demonstrate that your specialization lies elsewhere. Given the need for a division of labor, this is nothing to be ashamed of. However, you are clearly wrong and your positions are indefensible against basic logic.

The FDA may be empowered, but it’s mission is not what you assume. Government agencies are monopolies and they act like them: the mission doesn’t matter once competition is gone. Therefore, food and quality protection is highly subordinated to ensuring market stasis and salary gains for FDA member employees. Unfortunately, government monopolies are not only efficient but exceptionally dangerous institutions. Every action by the FDA is backed by the power of state guns, state prisons and the state judiciary. Make no mistake, when Ma Bell owned the phones, they were never going to threaten you with pistols and steal your freedom. The FDA has no qualms to make threats and will gladly steal years from your life for engaging in voluntary, peaceful exchange.

Your statement that the FDA needed to regulated quality control is complete hogwash. The FDA is taking more control because they can. The employees of the FDA are entrepreneurial. By expanding power and scope more high paying jobs are created, more careers made and more influence assured. Moreover, given that the FDA is a monopoly, those new high salary jobs don’t require much work. After all, when the mission fails, and people die from contamination, no organization is present to replace FDA. In effect, FDA employees are only incented to find ways to keep their jobs, not to actually work. This last part, when matched to the ability to arrest, is fundamental to understanding the dangers of the central authority.

When you say that consumers will benefit from FDA regulation, you burden yourself too much. You are suggesting something that has never happened and never will happen: a state-run monopoly actually producing good without greater negative. As Jefferson quipped, “ Were we to be directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread” - as shall prove with quality control. Now that you have Central Authority command, if you want to create a higher standard, you cannot. If you want to create a new quality standard, using new metrics, you cannot. Innovation is dead. Consumer dictated choices are gone. All choice will be ruled by the lowest common denominator at FDA.

Far more intelligent, and far more responsible, would be a voluntary system of compliance with the FDA regulations. Enable the product manufacturer/marketer to determine the relative benefits of adhering to state-controlled monopolistic regulations. Enable those who turn from regulation to choose a system wherein they mark their bottles, “this product is not regulated for quality control by the FDA.” In the end, you should advocate that we should all be free; free to enjoy our lives and free to exchange voluntary exchange.

All of those who have invited the FDA into this industry have done so for their short-term financial gain. They have determined that increased regulation means increased “barriers to entry” which means reduced competition. What they don’t know is that a regulated market has a greatly reduced upside. CGMPs are just the beginning for the FDA. Those hungry employees will see virgin fields of opportunity; opportunity to control the lives of others while earning $105,000/year with a guaranteed pension.

Since you are such an intelligent man, you might like the economics of von Mises and the Austrian School. You can find a ton of resources the Mises Institutes. A great adjunct is the “Broken Window Fallacy,” a tremendous treatise on unintended consequences. You may not like much of what they say, but they are certainly the sages when it comes to understanding the criminality of the state.

The solution was never to subject us all to monopoly; life is more than a binary choice; more than a false dichotomy. Disaster awaits; make as much as you can now. In tens years this industry will be neutered.

]]>