Does the FDA’s Monopoly Increase or Decrease Public Health?

A dear friend of mine (and fine physician), Dr. Chris Granger, took issue with this article I wrote with Patrick McLaughlin and Jonathan Nelson at the Mercatus Center: “Markets Can Protect Patients Better than the FDA.” He responded as follows on Facebook:

My dear friend … each major stage of the FDA’s history of providing a mechanism to promote safe and effective drugs and devices was a direct response to public health disasters in less regulated markets. So at least there is a strong argument that a completely free market, without a “societal entity” to provide a framework to assure some level of patient safety (and effectiveness), is not the best approach.

I responded as follows (edited):

Chris, my friend, I believe you are naively accepting the official history. At its very inception the FDA was a mechanism to benefit crony capitalists, not the general public. This is from the University of Michigan Press about their book, The Politics of Purity:

Spearheaded by Harvey Washington Wiley, the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 launched the federal regulation of food and drugs in the United States. Wiley is often lauded as a champion of public interest for bringing about a law that required healthful ingredients and honest labeling. Clayton Coppin and Jack High demonstrate, however, that Wiley was in fact surreptitiously allied with business firms that would benefit from regulation …

Coppin and High … expose the selectivity of Wiley’s enforcement of the law, in which he manipulated commercial competition in order to reward firms that supported him and penalize those that opposed him. By examining the history of the law’s movement, the authors show that, rather than acting in the public interest, Wiley used the Pure Food and Drugs Act to further his own power and success.

Evidence presented at shows that the FDA’s determination to keep bad drugs off the market has caused a succession of (unseen) public health problems by keeping good drugs off the market or delaying their availability.

And, Chris, “a ‘societal entity’ to provide a framework to assure some level of patient safety (and effectiveness)” does not have to be a government entity, or a single one, does it? Religious instruction is also important, but we don’t need the government to provide it, we just need government to allow private sector religious institutions to do so.

Furthermore, while it may be true, as Dr. Granger says, that “each major stage of the FDA’s [growth] …. was a direct response to public health disasters in less regulated markets,” that response was not necessarily helpful, nor preferable to the responses that would have arisen in the private sector but were crowded out by the FDA. The well-intended governmental response might have made things worse. This video I made with Tomasz Kaye explains why.

For those who would like to know what economists think about the issue, here is an article by Daniel Klein which finds that “Many economists have expressed judgments about the FDA. In almost all cases, they have supported liberalization, often dramatic.”


Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

Crowd-Sourced Regulation of Ride-Hailing

I am increasingly persuaded that free-market forces regulate safety and quality better than government agencies can, so we should get rid of government regulatory agencies that “protect” consumers by taking away the freedom of consumers and businesses to make exchanges they both desire. In an op-ed posted at “The Hill,”  Patrick McLaughlin of the Mercatus Center andContinue Reading

Markets Can Protect Patients Better than the FDA

The good people at the Mercatus Center have been helping me get my academic work on regulation by market forces into policy discussions. Here is a slice of the most recent effort, posted April 5 to coincide with hearings on the nomination of Scott Gottlieb to head the FDA: While safety and efficacy are important,Continue Reading

Yes, Free Speech for Fascists – a Confession

Last week, when one of my students caught sight of me approaching on a campus walk, he pulled out his smartphone to show me a picture he had taken. “Look at this,” he said, disgusted. “It was in the Liberal Arts Building.” The picture showed a hand-lettered sign, hung over an atrium railing, that read,Continue Reading

Central Planning Does Not Work for Schooling, Either

Here is the opening of a recent post at Learn Liberty’s blog: In Kentucky, says scholar Caleb Brown, it’s easy to find a barista who has a bachelor’s degree, but manufacturing companies can’t find the machinists they desperately need — whose pay would start at $60,000–$80,000 a year. That slice of modern economic life comesContinue Reading

Great Book: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

This past Christmas break I treated myself to a (third?) re-reading of Robert Heinlein’s science fiction classic, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. What a yarn. The rising generation needs to know about it, I thought, so I wrote a plug for it at Learn Liberty. A slice: [D]on’t miss this book. Not only is itContinue Reading

Trump’s Proposed Wall and Tax Are Folly

After “The White House … floated the idea of imposing a 20 percent tax on goods from Mexico to pay for a wall at the southern U.S. border” in January, I went on record about the idea at Learn Liberty also posted the piece. A slice: [Y]es, immigrants do take some jobs that peopleContinue Reading

Senator Tom Cotton and Rep. Mike Pompeo Spread Four Myths About Immigration

In September 2016, Senator Tom Cotton and Rep. Mike Pompeo advocated immigration restrictions in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Their argument reaches wrong conclusions from wrong premises, as I explain in a letter to the editor. Here is the abbreviated version of the letter published in the WSJ. Learn Liberty published the full text of the letter in October. AContinue Reading

Profits in “Perfect” v. Actual Competition

“I learned in economics that in ‘perfect competition’ profits are zero, so any actual profits come from some kind of monopoly power. So how could profits be good?” This question was asked of me by a student at a recent economics seminar hosted by the Institute for Humane Studies. The simple explanation is that whileContinue Reading

Government Regulators are Monopolies

Here is the third article in a series on regulation I have been publishing at FEE: “Government Regulators are Monopolies.” It is part of a project to challenge the validity of government “regulation,” which should more properly be called government “restriction,” as that word describes what government agencies mostly do: they restrict people’s freedom to make voluntary exchanges. The aimContinue Reading

Contact Dr. Baetjer

Enter your email address:

Skip to toolbar