Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ Mona
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Arne]: How about putting up "speed limit" recommendations (you know, like those little yellow signs that everyone ignores)? (yes, I know that speed limit violations potentially hurt others, but seeing as we're talking means of enforcement of what the gummint thinks is 'good behaviour'....)
You gave my answer in the part I bolded.
I was asking about the "means"? Should the argument about the enforcement "means" be different for the two cases? If so, why?
[Arne]: Do you think that "truth-in-advertising" really works? Are there efficiency problems (as I've hinted)?
[Arne]: Who would have the means and the duty to go tracking down false claims? Who would have the duty to enforce the provisions? (FWIW, I'd note that your suggestion is the one adopted for cigarettes and alcohol ... think it works?)
It depends, I suppose, on your metrics for "really works." And if by "working" you mean warnings on cigarettes and alcohol containers have caused nearly all to stop buying these products, then obviously they do not "work." But I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of people know that consuming a fifth of gin a day while smoking three packs of cigarettes is a ticket to a quick grave. But that should be their choice.
Back to my question: "Think it works?" Does it "work" in a meaningful sense?
And who should be paying for the research? Should the quacks be getting a "free ride"? Should they be allowed to overwhelm the gummint if given a "free ride" with so many "new" products as to make the gummint unable to keep up (as seems to be the case for the latest twists on diet and "manly vigour" crapola judging on telly ads....)?
There exists a certain segment of society -- and it cuts across political lines -- that really and irrationally thinks conventional medicine is a rip-off and scam. If they want to go to homeopaths and take laetrile, as long as those sources have to prominently display that they are not approved by the AMA/FDA, let them -- for some, that only makes such choices MORE attractive. I think they are crazy, but it's their body.
Should the labels say "not FDA-approved"? Or should they say "this product has been shown in independent double-blind studies to be sheer hokum"? What point type?
Cheers,
-
@ Mona
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Arne]: I was asking about the "means"? Should the argument about the enforcement "means" be different for the two cases? If so, why?
Truly I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand your question, If you are speeding, you get pulled over and given a ticket. That is not how fraud is pursued. What "means" distinction are you trying to get at?
Here's the original colloquy:
[Mona]: I think laetrile sellers should be required to advertise that the AMA, FDA & etc., see no validity to their claims. But after that, it is up to the individual.
[Arne]: Then you agree with the problem, but not on the mechanisms of a 'solution'. How about putting up "speed limit" recommendations (you know, like those little yellow signs that everyone ignores)? (yes, I know that speed limit violations potentially hurt others, but seeing as we're talking means of enforcement of what the gummint thinks is 'good behaviour'....)
You agree that selling laetrile to rubes (assuming arguendo that it's snake-oil) is bad, and that it is the gummint's duty to discourage if not prevent it.
The question is by what means (and with what level of compulsion.
Prosecuting "fraud" after-the-fact (or worse yet, leaving it to a civil tort case after the harm has been done) would be like slapping criminal penalties and/or civil liability on speeders after they've caused some harm. Prosecuting them (or threatening prosecution) beforehand for unsafe (or unsavoury) behaviour, through speeding tickets or through prosecutions and fines for selling bad product, up front has the salutary effect of more effective prevention than ex post facto liability (particularly since speeders don't think they'll crash and snake-oil sellers may actually believe they're selling good sh*te.
[Arne]: Back to my question: "Think it works?" Does it "work" in a meaningful sense?
[Arne]: And who should be paying for the research? Should the quacks be getting a "free ride"? Should they be allowed to overwhelm the gummint if given a "free ride" with so many "new" products as to make the gummint unable to keep up (as seems to be the case for the latest twists on diet and "manly vigour" crapola judging on telly ads....)?
Well, you can't prove they are quacks, can you, unless someone has researched it and shown the claimed cure or whatever is not efficacious. But you can require them to point out -- and really Arne, I haven't reflected on font styles and size! -- that there is no FDA approval for X.
Why not? The way it currently works for drugs is that the manufacturers have to do the research to prove safety and efficacy first (food "supplements" avoid this by the convenient "fiction" that "foods" can't be poisonous and by avoiding any specific medical claims to efficacy for their product [thus "Bob" and his "manly vigour"]). What's wrong with this?
As for font size, there were plenty of arguments as to both wording and conspicuousness of the "Surgeon General's warnings" .... with the industries of course looking for any ways to make sure the fewest people saw it; kind of tells you where they were coming from. I have to admit that the warnings I've seen in other countries with less of a "free speech"/"laissez faire" tradition are quite ... ummmm ... interesting. Graphic pictures of malignant lung cancer in lungs blackened with tar.....
Cheers,