Just responding to your first point. The FDA scope of jurisdiction is breathtakingly large and arbitrarily enforced, so the fact that it can fall under their jurisdiction and that they claim it is a weak statement. In policy it is like writing laws which make everyone a criminal and only enforcing it when you feel like it.
Is this a fair comparison for the FDA? Yes, because in the current system you are guilty until you prove your own innocence to their standard of evidence, which tends to vary based on who you are. One could argue that the potential harm of unregulated supplements is clear and present, yet the FDA chooses not to act.
To whom shall we write our complaints about the unregulated aspects of the food and drugs which have the potential to cause massive harm (but which apparently don't because people on aggregate are not as helpless as they sometimes appear)?
Is this a fair comparison for the FDA? Yes, because in the current system you are guilty until you prove your own innocence to their standard of evidence, which tends to vary based on who you are. One could argue that the potential harm of unregulated supplements is clear and present, yet the FDA chooses not to act.
To whom shall we write our complaints about the unregulated aspects of the food and drugs which have the potential to cause massive harm (but which apparently don't because people on aggregate are not as helpless as they sometimes appear)?