So you’d rather have an underfunded and slow FDA prove things which are meant to be consumed are poison after the fact, than make corporations prove they’re safe before they get to sell them to consumers who assume the product is safe?
Yes, I believe it is appropriate to punish only crimes that have occurred and not impede all actors in a futile attempt to prevent every imaginable or accidental evil.
You sound like you want to keep corporations honest and I do too.
Unfortunately raising the barriers to entry will also reduce competition, leaving only those that can afford to do exhaustive testing of things as simple as nutmeg and oregano in the game (large corporations, who’s studies are already dubious). I would rather assume individuals are capable of choosing for themselves than ruin a good thing (the ability to innovate) by trying to save everyone from themselves. It’s an admirable sentiment, but placing the responsibility in the wrong place creates numerous conflicts of interest later. “Guilty until proven innocent” only helps those who don’t need it (if you weren’t guilty, well, you wouldn’t be on the witness stand…).
Don’t get me wrong though, there’s no reason problematic cases can’t be prosecuted fully to set a punitive example.
Furthermore, labeling would go a long way to supporting and informing consumer choice. But ultimately that choice resides with the consumer, who is not a passive agent by any means.
