> The gov wants to decide what's best for the people. Should the people decide differently, using their wallets for example, this anomaly will be quashed.
There are huge information asymmetries involved when it comes to medical drugs, and also huge barriers to experimenting with different products. "Voting with your wallet" is appropriate for determining which cell phone should be popular, not which medical drugs or medical tests.
We as a society have determined that the appropriate risk versus innovation trade-off when it comes to medicines and drugs is less risk at the potential cost of less innovation. The FDA exists to safeguard that policy.
It's funny that you mention Asia, because the trend in Asian countries is to follow the American/European model. Asians have had enough of thinking "is this rat meat?" every time they bite into a lamb kebob, and are regulating their food and drug industries. And by "asians" I mean the Chinese, because the Japanese and Koreans have adopted the Western regulatory model long ago.
The Chinese have the death penalty for food adulteration with toxic or non-food products[1]. It's funny seeing people complain about heavy handed regulation in comparison.
> There are huge information asymmetries involved when it comes to medical drugs...
This is what the FDA should be doing. Correcting information asymmetries. With labeling requirements, unbiased PSAs, drug pamphlets and literature. Not telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies, or what businesses can and can't sell on the open market.
In fact, I'd say most government regulatory functions should be set up this way. Clearly inform and educate your citizens, don't opaquely dictate the behavior of your subjects.
Well, but this is exactly what they are doing here - the letter claims that they required corrections in the marketing claims (which would be correcting information asymmetries / labeling requirements), this wasn't done properly for a long time, so they are now enforcing it.
For any reasonable requirement, if people/companies don't comply then it has to escalate to [threats of] harsher actions in order to force the reasonable thing to actually happen.
I know you're responding to a more general point, but I don't think any of your post applies to this situation. This is about marketing materials, and more importantly the factual information therein.
There are huge information asymmetries involved when it comes to medical drugs, and also huge barriers to experimenting with different products. "Voting with your wallet" is appropriate for determining which cell phone should be popular, not which medical drugs or medical tests.
We as a society have determined that the appropriate risk versus innovation trade-off when it comes to medicines and drugs is less risk at the potential cost of less innovation. The FDA exists to safeguard that policy.
It's funny that you mention Asia, because the trend in Asian countries is to follow the American/European model. Asians have had enough of thinking "is this rat meat?" every time they bite into a lamb kebob, and are regulating their food and drug industries. And by "asians" I mean the Chinese, because the Japanese and Koreans have adopted the Western regulatory model long ago.