In whose interest

[HopAlongBunny]

The FDA is supposed to act as a gatekeeper to keep consumers safe.
When the FDA gets through testing and approval, what comes out the other side should do what it claims, and cause as little harm as possible.
If that's all true, why is it so hard to get complete data from them? Transparency would seem to be required in a public service where lives are at stake:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-manufacturer/

So, who is the FDA working for?

[CrossLOPER]

I lightly skimmed the article because it's late, but it looks like the problem is that the agency is trying to balance transparency and protecting property, yielding poor results for everyone. I think the FDA is on the public's side, but is hamstrung by the inherent problems of such an arrangement.

[HopAlongBunny]

I went to re-read the article and found the link no longer leads to the article.
That article focused mainly on how difficult it was to get a straight answer, and complete data from the FDA.
Couldn't find that article again; while looking for it I found a better overview (similar case, more complete sense of context and actions)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tay-on-market/

It still strikes me as an unbelievable amount of foot dragging and evasion by a public regulator.

[rory_20_uk]

It is a tough issue - especially since those in Congress are probably utterly incapable of adequately understanding the data - so those that can understand it are probably going to be under the sway of Big Bad Pharma and that those who are left will probably do more harm than good.

The FDA are used to being all-powerful so I'm not surprised their arrogance is almost unlimited.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is a tough issue - especially since those in Congress are probably utterly incapable of adequately understanding the data - so those that can understand it are probably going to be under the sway of Big Bad Pharma and that those who are left will probably do more harm than good.

The FDA are used to being all-powerful so I'm not surprised their arrogance is almost unlimited.

The staff of a typical congress critter includes some really bright people, often several who are crackerjack with stats especially. But they are all political wonks and their critter has to be funded for their reelection bid 17 months after they take office. At just under 1.7M for a winning election bid (on average) your average congress critter must bank an average of $2300 a day. The brains on a Congressional staff are BUSY and it isn't crunching the numbers for their glib representative to know whether the FDA is slow, painfully slow, or criminally slow.