of course there will still be problems w/ food,but at least there will be consequences and accoutability
There can't be "consequences and accountability" absent regulation??? What do you call it if everyone in this country refused to purchase another ounce of pet food from this company? Is that not a "consequence"? Does that not hold them "accountable"?
no, i won't, but thanks for forcing your perception onto me, what did the unknowing employees have to do w/ it or greed? are you saying greed had no role in it? was it done for shits and giggles?
Greed had much to do with it. But it will likely not just be the greed of some single executive. It might be some plant manager somewhere. It might be a knowing employee who simply decided that a few deaths in a taste test weren't worth reporting. Furthermore, the greed of consumers who believe they have no accountability regarding their purchases will go completely excused.
if another company doesn't violate those laws/regulations then they have no worries...
Of course they do. Your regulations won't just apply to this dog food company. You'll force all of them to be subject to your inspections, your processes, your taxes, your laws. Do you think those things have no cost? Do you think they represent no burden?
You'll end up treating every food manufacturer like an active criminal, and then complain 5 years later when there are only a handful of corporations left making that food. You'll unwittingly increase the cost of doing business, and then complain when the competition disappears, costs increase, and mistakes suddenly affect everyone.
There arguably could be more problems. Absent any mention of a specific regulation, people here seem to be blindly saying "regulation will fix things". Sort of like this:
Hence why I used the phrase "better regulations." I've even got a specific regulation to mention - No Rat Poison In Pet Foods.
Hence why I used the phrase "better regulations." I've even got a specific regulation to mention - No Rat Poison In Pet Foods.
You're going to have to define "better". What's your standard? Deaths from dog food? Then the best regulation would be to ban dog food. Without dog food, there would be the lowest possible number of deaths from dog food.
Even your proposed regulation, "No Rat Poison In Pet Foods" has problems. Certain types of vitamins will kill rats but are healthy for dogs. So, again, it's the short-sighted, reactionary elements of these kinds of regulations that can end up doing more harm than good.
The dead ones won't be customers anymore; so I guess that's some form of accountability for both parties involved.
Ok, that's what, 100 people? What do you do about the millions who aren't dead? Pass some regulations and then tell these people it's ok to buy pet food from these fools again?
You're going to have to define "better". What's your standard? Deaths from dog food? Then the best regulation would be to ban dog food. Without dog food, there would be the lowest possible number of deaths from dog food.
Without food, there'd be the lowest possible number of all deaths from food borne illnesses. However, the spike in starvation would be huge. Personally, and I don't want to have to use a Buddhist term here, but maybe a Middle Way is the best way. In fact, I'm sure of it. If making sure bits of broken glass or strains of encephalitis aren't in my Cheerios, then it's worth it for me to inconvenience you.
Even your proposed regulation, "No Rat Poison In Pet Foods" has problems. Certain types of vitamins will kill rats but are healthy for dogs. So, again, it's the short-sighted, reactionary elements of these kinds of regulations that can end up doing more harm than good.
Man, you're rich. Were I a chemist, I'm sure I could mention the specific chemicals that, through regulation, would be banned from use in pet foods. And it wouldn't cause a lick of harm - except maybe to the pet food company's bottom line, but not enough to make them unprofitable.
I certainly do think that. However, I don't think, absent regulations, the medical field would be similar to what it is now.
You do think that? You need to spend some time with me in my lab. Much of the regs are in place as preventative measures, due to past issues, it's a quality control issue. Some of the problems are unknown until they are discovered & pointed out by the regulatory agencies. For example, there is a heart medication called Digoxin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digoxin. It has a very narrow therapeutic range and can be deadly if too much is administered. We monitor therapeutic drug levels in our lab. Apparently, there can be a prozone effect when the level of drug is too high. This means the substrate in the test is depleted by the high drug level and a falsely decreased drug level is the result. So, then the doctors act on this erroneous result and administer more of the drug to the patient. This can lead to toxic levels and death. This has happened in hospitals and has happened with many different methodologies. Most laboratories were unaware (ignorant) of the problem until it was brought to light by the regulatory agencies. It is now a standard to dilute negative specimens with a known value to ensure no prozone effect is present. Without this reg, some labs might not be so diligent in ensuring quality, due to many factors, including ignorance, laziness, etc. I can dig up statistics on how certain regs have reduced errors, if you like.
Certainly. But accountability and government regulation are not necessarily dependent.
I agree, but you can't discount the decreased number of errors & fatalities due to the regulatory agencies. I'm not saying that sometimes it's not over-kill, but you can't argue that regulatory agencies have no effect.
I can think of dozens of examples myself. Yet everyday in this country, people die because of erroneous test results, tainted products, ignored processes, and willful negligence.
Absent regulation, could more people be dying from those things? Certainly, yes. However, absent industry consolidation, price controls, restricted competition, witless consumers and wreckless politicians, could less people by dying from those things? Certainly, yes. So it's not just a "to regulate or not regulate" argument.
So what's your problem with regulatory agencies? To 'not regulate' leads to more problems and you seem to agree with this.
How about I give you two examples (one hypothetical and one actual) as you requested?
First, let's look at this very situation and a likely hypothetical that could come out of it. It would have cost Menu Foods X amount of dollars to simply withhold all of this food from the market, given the information they had at the time before sending it out to stores. However, it's now going to cost them $X times many factors to suffer the consequences of their actions now, despite the absence of regulation. The recall itself and loss in sales will end up costing them far more than the original withholding would have, even ignoring the fines or lawsuits that will come out of it. So, their cost-cutting on the "front-end" is going to be dwarfed by the losses on the "back-end", regardless of regulatory actions.
I agree with this and I provided an example earlier. So why not abide by the regs, ensure quality control, and prevent further expenses? Actually, having clear-cut standards ensures that you are providing a quality product or services. They make you aware of problems you might not have been aware of to begin with. See above example about therapeutic drugs[/quote]
Second, let's look at a past example. The diabetes drug Rezulin was recently removed from the market after pressure from regulatory bodies. Rezulin had a side effect that ended up killing about 100 people, despited hundreds of thousands of people who suffered zero negative consequences from taking the drug. Competing drugs existed on the market, but not all patients responded to those drugs and thousands of people died from untreated diabetes. Existing regulations and "accountability" made it impossible for the drug makers to continue to produce the drug without having to suffer extreme costs that redered the drug as a loss-maker.
Unfortunately, we tend to measure regulations in averages, instead of individual choices. The problem is that "averages" don't eat dog food, don't take medicine, and don't grow crops. Individuals do those things, and you cannot assess them as averages.
I agree with you here, being a pharmacy school drop-out, I'm not familiar with the all the regs they fall under, although they answer to some of the same agencies and I.
Look, I'm not saying that regulatory agencies are perfect. They are not and I have experienced the frustrations. But, the alternative can be harmful (ie no regs at all) I will also say that I have personally seen agencies revoke current standards due to complaints form experts in the field. There is certainly redundancy and over-kill.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Without food, there'd be the lowest possible number of all deaths from food borne illnesses. However, the spike in starvation would be huge. Personally, and I don't want to have to use a Buddhist term here, but maybe a Middle Way is the best way. In fact, I'm sure of it. If making sure bits of broken glass or strains of encephalitis aren't in my Cheerios, then it's worth it for me to inconvenience you.
Hehe...the Middle Way isn't inconveniencing me for your convenience. I love it how I'm treated as the extreme here, while others propose broad and invasive regulation aimed at the innocent.
Man, you're rich. Were I a chemist, I'm sure I could mention the specific chemicals that, through regulation, would be banned from use in pet foods. And it wouldn't cause a lick of harm - except maybe to the pet food company's bottom line, but not enough to make them unprofitable.
I could also simply ban you from owning a pet. And that wouldn't cause a lick of harm - except maybe to your happiness.
You're going to have to define "better". What's your standard? Deaths from dog food? Then the best regulation would be to ban dog food. Without dog food, there would be the lowest possible number of deaths from dog food.
Even your proposed regulation, "No Rat Poison In Pet Foods" has problems. Certain types of vitamins will kill rats but are healthy for dogs. So, again, it's the short-sighted, reactionary elements of these kinds of regulations that can end up doing more harm than good.
LOL! Come on now. You are right, that when a problem arises, you can bet there will be a new reg. But it certainly will not cause more harm (death, illness, etc). Maybe it will will cause a company to rethink how they do business, but that's life. How do you see it causing more harm exactly?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...the Middle Way isn't inconveniencing me for your convenience. I love it how I'm treated as the extreme here, while others propose broad and invasive regulation aimed at the innocent.
Who are the innocent here, ffg?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...the Middle Way isn't inconveniencing me for your convenience. I love it how I'm treated as the extreme here, while others propose broad and invasive regulation aimed at the innocent.
I don't find "No Rat Poison"* to be broad and invasive.
*For legal purposes, "Rat Poison" is defined as "Poison used for the specific purpose of killing rats and other pests. Not meant for consumption by things you want to live."
I could also simply ban you from owning a pet. And that wouldn't cause a lick of harm - except maybe to your happiness.
Yeah, but that's stupid. Landlords/owners are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not they want to allow pets on their property. Why mess with what works?
I don't find "No Rat Poison"* to be broad and invasive.
*For legal purposes, "Rat Poison" is defined as "Poison used for the specific purpose of killing rats and other pests. Not meant for consumption by things you want to live."
You do think that? You need to spend some time with me in my lab. Much of the regs are in place as preventative measures, due to past issues, it's a quality control issue. Some of the problems are unknown until they are discovered & pointed out by the regulatory agencies. For example, there is a heart medication called Digoxin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digoxin. It has a very narrow therapeutic range and can be deadly if too much is administered. We monitor therapeutic drug levels in our lab. Apparently, there can be a prozone effect when the level of drug is too high. This means the substrate in the test is depleted by the high drug level and a falsely decreased drug level is the result. So, then the doctors act on this erroneous result and administer more of the drug to the patient. This can lead to toxic levels and death. This has happened in hospitals and has happened with many different methodologies. Most laboratories were unaware (ignorant) of the problem until it was brought to light by the regulatory agencies. It is now a standard to dilute negative specimens with a known value to ensure no prozone effect is present. Without this reg, some labs might not be so diligent in ensuring quality, due to many factors, including ignorance, laziness, etc. I can dig up statistics on how certain regs have reduced errors, if you like.
Ok, and I don't dispute the main contention here "without this reg, some labs might not be so diligent in ensuring quality".
I'm not trying to sell a "regulation is always harmful" argument here. The benefits of many regulations outweigh the negatives, particularly if one simply looks at a narrow spectrum like a) lives saved or b) costs associated or things like that.
I agree, but you can't discount the decreased number of errors & fatalities due to the regulatory agencies. I'm not saying that sometimes it's not over-kill, but you can't argue that regulatory agencies have no effect.
Definitely -- I'm not discounting or arguing those things. I'm simply saying that a) they should not be assumed and b) they should not be seen as the only possible way.
So what's your problem with regulatory agencies? To 'not regulate' leads to more problems and you seem to agree with this.
It depends. It most certainly can lead to more problems to not regulate. But regulatory agencies also become slaves to those who run them or can buy them. They become lazy, self-serving and often times act contrary to their actual mission. These things aren't always the case, and I'm not trying to represent all regulatory bodies as some kind of Stalinistic machine of oppression.
My problem with regulatory agencies is effectively my problem with cold medicine. Cold medicine can do a great job of treating symptoms, but it doesn't solve the problems. The main problems here are greed and stupidity, and not just the greed and stupidity of the manufacturers. Furthermore, we have ancillary problems like the concentration of food manufacture in distant, consolidated corporations, something regulations and bad consuming help ensure. You can't regulate those things away, you can only treat their symptoms.
I agree with this and I provided an example earlier. So why not abide by the regs, ensure quality control, and prevent further expenses? Actually, having clear-cut standards ensures that you are providing a quality product or services. They make you aware of problems you might not have been aware of to begin with. See above example about therapeutic drugs
Definitely agree on the clear-cut standards thing. That's a must not only in a regulatory environment, but in a good business environment as well.
I agree with you here, being a pharmacy school drop-out, I'm not familiar with the all the regs they fall under, although they answer to some of the same agencies and I.
Look, I'm not saying that regulatory agencies are perfect. They are not and I have experienced the frustrations. But, the alternative can be harmful (ie no regs at all) I will also say that I have personally seen agencies revoke current standards due to complaints form experts in the field. There is certainly redundancy and over-kill.
I don't think we're that far off here, at least practically. We're just coming at this from slightly different biases/experiences, and I don't mean that in a negative or disparaging sense either way.
Philosophically, I'm opposed to all kind of regulations but that's part of a much larger view of how I think the world could work and that's probably where we differ greatly. I'm not suggesting that removing regulations and keeping the food/medicine production environment we have today would somehow work to serve people better. It wouldn't.
LOL! Come on now. You are right, that when a problem arises, you can bet there will be a new reg. But it certainly will not cause more harm (death, illness, etc). Maybe it will will cause a company to rethink how they do business, but that's life. How do you see it causing more harm exactly?
Let's say I make dog food. FarFromGlorified Industries has been producing dog food for 100 years, and we have a great reputation and a loyal customer base.
Now, baraka Industries comes along and starts making dog food that's cheaper than mine. It just happens to include rat poison. Lots of dogs die.
Then, the government steps in and starts regulating both our businesses. My costs increase, and the consuming public is now being duped into believing you now know how to make dog food since you're passing regulations. You've simply passed these regulations by bribing your inspectors and using bug spray instead of rat poison. Because of your wonderful "turn around", the government rewards you with all kinds of tax breaks that offset the costs of their regulations to you, while I have to suffer them because my business isn't any better since you passed your regulations.
Your costs remain low, mine remain high. And I'm faced with a decision: do business like baraka Industries or go out of business.
Because of your wonderful "turn around", the government rewards you with all kinds of tax breaks that offset the costs of their regulations to you, while I have to suffer them because my business isn't any better since you passed your regulations.
Your costs remain low, mine remain high. And I'm faced with a decision: do business like baraka Industries or go out of business.
But that's just some fun hyperbole.
You edited your post.
At any rate, in most cases the tax breaks should be based on quality of output, not extent of turn around. If I were you in that situation, I'd petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I don't find "No Rat Poison"* to be broad and invasive.
*For legal purposes, "Rat Poison" is defined as "Poison used for the specific purpose of killing rats and other pests. Not meant for consumption by things you want to live."
It's not "broad and invasive", but it's also not what an actual regulation from these events will be.
And I understand your caveat here, and I also understood it in the original. My point was simply to highlight the obvious and common problem faced by regulators -- defining clear-cut standards that have to be applied in a generalized and widely applicable sense.
Yeah, but that's stupid. Landlords/owners are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not they want to allow pets on their property. Why mess with what works?
Does it work??? Dogs die all the time because of decisions by landlords and owners. More dogs probably died in the amount of time we've had this conversation than have died or will die from this pet food crisis. Again, if the standard is simply "dogs dying", then you've opened the door to all sorts of rules and regulations that are easily classified as "stupid".
At any rate, in most cases the tax breaks should be based on quality of output, not extent of turn around. If I were you in that situation, I'd petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Hehe..."quality of output"? What does that mean?
Let's say I produce 15 tons of dog food a year. 3 dogs die from eating my food.
Let's say you produce 5 tons of dog food a year. 1 dog dies from eating your food.
Let's say I produce 15 tons of dog food a year. 3 dogs die from eating my food.
Let's say you produce 5 tons of dog food a year. 1 dog dies from eating your food.
Who produces better dog food?
I'd call that a wash as far as deaths are concerned. And obviously my business - and the regulations it resulted in due to my negligence - isn't hurting yours too much in that your output is three times what mine is.
Let's say I make dog food. FarFromGlorified Industries has been producing dog food for 100 years, and we have a great reputation and a loyal customer base.
Now, baraka Industries comes along and starts making dog food that's cheaper than mine. It just happens to include rat poison. Lots of dogs die.
Then, the government steps in and starts regulating both our businesses. My costs increase, and the consuming public is now being duped into believing you now know how to make dog food since you're passing regulations. You've simply passed these regulations by bribing your inspectors and using bug spray instead of rat poison. Because of your wonderful "turn around", the government rewards you with all kinds of tax breaks that offset the costs of their regulations to you, while I have to suffer them because my business isn't any better since you passed your regulations.
Your costs remain low, mine remain high. And I'm faced with a decision: do business like baraka Industries or go out of business.
But that's just some fun hyperbole.
This is funny, because I was about to give an example on how a mistake in one lab caused all labs in this country to change the way they perform transfusion medicine. Your example is much more fun than mine .
I know what you are saying here and I'm not saying the regulatory agencies are perfect. Your example actually reminded me of Wal-Mart a bit, but that is another thread. While bribery is a possibility, it does not happen routinely. And yes, shady companies will always try to 'one up' the regulatory agencies (see article & my example about Abbott). & I feel your pain because my dad had a similar problem with his business, increased cost due to new regs, due to shady competitors. But again, that's the cost of doing business.
BTW, there is no doubt that baraka industries would stomp ffg industries and the above accusations are simply slander! he he
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'd call that a wash as far as deaths are concerned.
Really? Wouldn't you find it relevant to ask how many dogs ate each of our foods?
And obviously my business - and the regulations it resulted in due to my negligence - isn't hurting yours too much in that your output is three times what mine is.
Again, you've assumed that our businesses are equal. Let's say I produce my 15 tons of dog food using half the labor you need to produce your 5. But then say your regulation stipulates a certain number of employees per output ton in an attempt to ensure "proper" oversight.
It's not "broad and invasive", but it's also not what an actual regulation from these events will be.
And I understand your caveat here, and I also understood it in the original. My point was simply to highlight the obvious and common problem faced by regulators -- defining clear-cut standards that have to be applied in a generalized and widely applicable sense.
It's hard to say what the actual regulation will be. I'm not dim enough to believe that "regulation = always good." I'm just saying that regulations are necessary. Oxygen is necessary too, but I wouldn't recommend trying to suck it out of water.
Does it work??? Dogs die all the time because of decisions by landlords and owners. More dogs probably died in the amount of time we've had this conversation than have died or will die from this pet food crisis. Again, if the standard is simply "dogs dying", then you've opened the door to all sorts of rules and regulations that are easily classified as "stupid".
Right, but that's not defining how the dogs died. You're going to need to be more specific. I'm talking specifically about the ones that were killed by rat poison - and why said chemical compounds shouldn't be allowed in feed.
My problem with regulatory agencies is effectively my problem with cold medicine. Cold medicine can do a great job of treating symptoms, but it doesn't solve the problems. The main problems here are greed and stupidity, and not just the greed and stupidity of the manufacturers. Furthermore, we have ancillary problems like the concentration of food manufacture in distant, consolidated corporations, something regulations and bad consuming help ensure. You can't regulate those things away, you can only treat their symptoms.
I disagree, standards can definitely solve problems, not all, of course. Maybe we are not on the same page, because I'm coming from a medical perspective, where things are usually back & white. I can see where there could be shades of gray in other types of businesses, however.
I don't think we're that far off here, at least practically. We're just coming at this from slightly different biases/experiences, and I don't mean that in a negative or disparaging sense either way.
I didn't take it has such and think you are correct.
Philosophically, I'm opposed to all kind of regulations but that's part of a much larger view of how I think the world could work and that's probably where we differ greatly. I'm not suggesting that removing regulations and keeping the food/medicine production environment we have today would somehow work to serve people better. It wouldn't.
Now we get to the meat of the matter. Like the tax thing, eh? Yes, this is where we come an impasse in the debate due to differing philosophical stances. Although, I think we agree more than disagree. Always a pleasure, ffg.........
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Really? Wouldn't you find it relevant to ask how many dogs ate each of our foods?
So I made the mistake of assuming that the dogs ate the food produced due to your stating that the dogs died from eating the food. In the future, I'll make sure to interview the ones that lived. See? Regulations are adaptable.
Let's say I produce my 15 tons of dog food using half the labor you need to produce your 5. But then say your regulation stipulates a certain number of employees per output ton in an attempt to ensure "proper" oversight.
Well, these details weren't included in your original post; and, were I a dog food company owner, I'd have definitely considered it. Likely, I just slap a "Premium" sticker on the bag and up the price.
You've simply passed these regulations by bribing your inspectors and using bug spray instead of rat poison.
Just had a thought yesterday after this discussion. Most of the regulatory agencies that inspect us are done by peers, for example, I participated in an inspection last week, as a peer and our lab will be inspected by peers. Does this make any difference in your perspective?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Just had a thought yesterday after this discussion. Most of the regulatory agencies that inspect us are done by peers, for example, I participated in an inspection last week, as a peer and our lab will be inspected by peers. Does this make any difference in your perspective?
So long as it's forced and potentially in violation of the will of those who own the lab, no.
Comments
There can't be "consequences and accountability" absent regulation??? What do you call it if everyone in this country refused to purchase another ounce of pet food from this company? Is that not a "consequence"? Does that not hold them "accountable"?
Greed had much to do with it. But it will likely not just be the greed of some single executive. It might be some plant manager somewhere. It might be a knowing employee who simply decided that a few deaths in a taste test weren't worth reporting. Furthermore, the greed of consumers who believe they have no accountability regarding their purchases will go completely excused.
Of course they do. Your regulations won't just apply to this dog food company. You'll force all of them to be subject to your inspections, your processes, your taxes, your laws. Do you think those things have no cost? Do you think they represent no burden?
You'll end up treating every food manufacturer like an active criminal, and then complain 5 years later when there are only a handful of corporations left making that food. You'll unwittingly increase the cost of doing business, and then complain when the competition disappears, costs increase, and mistakes suddenly affect everyone.
You're going to have to define "better". What's your standard? Deaths from dog food? Then the best regulation would be to ban dog food. Without dog food, there would be the lowest possible number of deaths from dog food.
Even your proposed regulation, "No Rat Poison In Pet Foods" has problems. Certain types of vitamins will kill rats but are healthy for dogs. So, again, it's the short-sighted, reactionary elements of these kinds of regulations that can end up doing more harm than good.
Ok, that's what, 100 people? What do you do about the millions who aren't dead? Pass some regulations and then tell these people it's ok to buy pet food from these fools again?
Man, you're rich. Were I a chemist, I'm sure I could mention the specific chemicals that, through regulation, would be banned from use in pet foods. And it wouldn't cause a lick of harm - except maybe to the pet food company's bottom line, but not enough to make them unprofitable.
No. Pass some regulations and then leave it up to the customers to decide if they want to buy from these fools again.
You do think that? You need to spend some time with me in my lab. Much of the regs are in place as preventative measures, due to past issues, it's a quality control issue. Some of the problems are unknown until they are discovered & pointed out by the regulatory agencies. For example, there is a heart medication called Digoxin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digoxin. It has a very narrow therapeutic range and can be deadly if too much is administered. We monitor therapeutic drug levels in our lab. Apparently, there can be a prozone effect when the level of drug is too high. This means the substrate in the test is depleted by the high drug level and a falsely decreased drug level is the result. So, then the doctors act on this erroneous result and administer more of the drug to the patient. This can lead to toxic levels and death. This has happened in hospitals and has happened with many different methodologies. Most laboratories were unaware (ignorant) of the problem until it was brought to light by the regulatory agencies. It is now a standard to dilute negative specimens with a known value to ensure no prozone effect is present. Without this reg, some labs might not be so diligent in ensuring quality, due to many factors, including ignorance, laziness, etc. I can dig up statistics on how certain regs have reduced errors, if you like.
I agree, but you can't discount the decreased number of errors & fatalities due to the regulatory agencies. I'm not saying that sometimes it's not over-kill, but you can't argue that regulatory agencies have no effect.
So what's your problem with regulatory agencies? To 'not regulate' leads to more problems and you seem to agree with this.
I agree with this and I provided an example earlier. So why not abide by the regs, ensure quality control, and prevent further expenses? Actually, having clear-cut standards ensures that you are providing a quality product or services. They make you aware of problems you might not have been aware of to begin with. See above example about therapeutic drugs[/quote]
I agree with you here, being a pharmacy school drop-out, I'm not familiar with the all the regs they fall under, although they answer to some of the same agencies and I.
Look, I'm not saying that regulatory agencies are perfect. They are not and I have experienced the frustrations. But, the alternative can be harmful (ie no regs at all) I will also say that I have personally seen agencies revoke current standards due to complaints form experts in the field. There is certainly redundancy and over-kill.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...the Middle Way isn't inconveniencing me for your convenience. I love it how I'm treated as the extreme here, while others propose broad and invasive regulation aimed at the innocent.
I could also simply ban you from owning a pet. And that wouldn't cause a lick of harm - except maybe to your happiness.
LOL! Come on now. You are right, that when a problem arises, you can bet there will be a new reg. But it certainly will not cause more harm (death, illness, etc). Maybe it will will cause a company to rethink how they do business, but that's life. How do you see it causing more harm exactly?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Who are the innocent here, ffg?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
*For legal purposes, "Rat Poison" is defined as "Poison used for the specific purpose of killing rats and other pests. Not meant for consumption by things you want to live."
Yeah, but that's stupid. Landlords/owners are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not they want to allow pets on their property. Why mess with what works?
Not to change the subject, but have you ever heard of Warfarin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin
One persons poison is another's medication
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ok, and I don't dispute the main contention here "without this reg, some labs might not be so diligent in ensuring quality".
I'm not trying to sell a "regulation is always harmful" argument here. The benefits of many regulations outweigh the negatives, particularly if one simply looks at a narrow spectrum like a) lives saved or b) costs associated or things like that.
Definitely -- I'm not discounting or arguing those things. I'm simply saying that a) they should not be assumed and b) they should not be seen as the only possible way.
It depends. It most certainly can lead to more problems to not regulate. But regulatory agencies also become slaves to those who run them or can buy them. They become lazy, self-serving and often times act contrary to their actual mission. These things aren't always the case, and I'm not trying to represent all regulatory bodies as some kind of Stalinistic machine of oppression.
My problem with regulatory agencies is effectively my problem with cold medicine. Cold medicine can do a great job of treating symptoms, but it doesn't solve the problems. The main problems here are greed and stupidity, and not just the greed and stupidity of the manufacturers. Furthermore, we have ancillary problems like the concentration of food manufacture in distant, consolidated corporations, something regulations and bad consuming help ensure. You can't regulate those things away, you can only treat their symptoms.
Definitely agree on the clear-cut standards thing. That's a must not only in a regulatory environment, but in a good business environment as well.
I don't think we're that far off here, at least practically. We're just coming at this from slightly different biases/experiences, and I don't mean that in a negative or disparaging sense either way.
Philosophically, I'm opposed to all kind of regulations but that's part of a much larger view of how I think the world could work and that's probably where we differ greatly. I'm not suggesting that removing regulations and keeping the food/medicine production environment we have today would somehow work to serve people better. It wouldn't.
The people who produce dog food that resulted in absolutely no dog deaths. And the people who buy that dog food.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Let's say I make dog food. FarFromGlorified Industries has been producing dog food for 100 years, and we have a great reputation and a loyal customer base.
Now, baraka Industries comes along and starts making dog food that's cheaper than mine. It just happens to include rat poison. Lots of dogs die.
Then, the government steps in and starts regulating both our businesses. My costs increase, and the consuming public is now being duped into believing you now know how to make dog food since you're passing regulations. You've simply passed these regulations by bribing your inspectors and using bug spray instead of rat poison. Because of your wonderful "turn around", the government rewards you with all kinds of tax breaks that offset the costs of their regulations to you, while I have to suffer them because my business isn't any better since you passed your regulations.
Your costs remain low, mine remain high. And I'm faced with a decision: do business like baraka Industries or go out of business.
But that's just some fun hyperbole.
At any rate, in most cases the tax breaks should be based on quality of output, not extent of turn around. If I were you in that situation, I'd petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It's not "broad and invasive", but it's also not what an actual regulation from these events will be.
And I understand your caveat here, and I also understood it in the original. My point was simply to highlight the obvious and common problem faced by regulators -- defining clear-cut standards that have to be applied in a generalized and widely applicable sense.
Does it work??? Dogs die all the time because of decisions by landlords and owners. More dogs probably died in the amount of time we've had this conversation than have died or will die from this pet food crisis. Again, if the standard is simply "dogs dying", then you've opened the door to all sorts of rules and regulations that are easily classified as "stupid".
Hehe..."quality of output"? What does that mean?
Let's say I produce 15 tons of dog food a year. 3 dogs die from eating my food.
Let's say you produce 5 tons of dog food a year. 1 dog dies from eating your food.
Who produces better dog food?
This is funny, because I was about to give an example on how a mistake in one lab caused all labs in this country to change the way they perform transfusion medicine. Your example is much more fun than mine
I know what you are saying here and I'm not saying the regulatory agencies are perfect. Your example actually reminded me of Wal-Mart a bit, but that is another thread. While bribery is a possibility, it does not happen routinely. And yes, shady companies will always try to 'one up' the regulatory agencies (see article & my example about Abbott). & I feel your pain because my dad had a similar problem with his business, increased cost due to new regs, due to shady competitors. But again, that's the cost of doing business.
BTW, there is no doubt that baraka industries would stomp ffg industries and the above accusations are simply slander! he he
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Really? Wouldn't you find it relevant to ask how many dogs ate each of our foods?
Again, you've assumed that our businesses are equal. Let's say I produce my 15 tons of dog food using half the labor you need to produce your 5. But then say your regulation stipulates a certain number of employees per output ton in an attempt to ensure "proper" oversight.
Right, but that's not defining how the dogs died. You're going to need to be more specific.
I disagree, standards can definitely solve problems, not all, of course. Maybe we are not on the same page, because I'm coming from a medical perspective, where things are usually back & white. I can see where there could be shades of gray in other types of businesses, however.
I didn't take it has such and think you are correct.
Now we get to the meat of the matter. Like the tax thing, eh? Yes, this is where we come an impasse in the debate due to differing philosophical stances. Although, I think we agree more than disagree. Always a pleasure, ffg.........
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
And you assumed, for the sake of argument, that I run a dog food business. Well, these details weren't included in your original post; and, were I a dog food company owner, I'd have definitely considered it. Likely, I just slap a "Premium" sticker on the bag and up the price.
Just had a thought yesterday after this discussion. Most of the regulatory agencies that inspect us are done by peers, for example, I participated in an inspection last week, as a peer and our lab will be inspected by peers. Does this make any difference in your perspective?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
So long as it's forced and potentially in violation of the will of those who own the lab, no.