Big cosmeceuticals and regulatory troubles

Regulatory bodies, like most political institutions, are in a constant state of compromise. On the one hand, there is risk to health and safety. On the next there is the violation of individual choice and the profit-driven companies that would like to manipulate that faculty.

I am fascinated when products that are widely available and marketed as benign turn out to be dangerous, in one way or another, to the health of consumers. Not because the FDA or Health Canada was deliberately negligent. They just missed the boat, or were too reluctant to act.

It seems inevitable that processed foods and trans fats—-along with a vast array of food ingredients—-will be deemed highly detrimental to health and nutrition in the long run. However, regulatory restrictions on access to these products, and labeling that indicates their dangers, is a long way from reaching fruition. It’s not because these products are a cultural staple in North America (although that has something to do with it) or that the business interests associated with McDonalds, for example, are incomprehensibly large—-it has more to do with the notion that people have a choice, one way or another, on what they would like to consume. And the government has no business stopping them. It is the role of government to discourage behavior (through programs and taxation), not to eliminate it entirely.

This argument becomes increasingly invalid when you look at products like cosmecueticals, a title literally created to avoid the regulation associated with pharmaceutical drugs.

“Once a company starts selling products with toxic ingredients, the FDA should put through a black box warning,” said Dr. Samuel Epstein. “But they have never exercised that authority.”

The FDA is a paltry excuse for a regulatory body, and has continually been found to be complacent in endangering American health. My favorite FDA exploits can be found here and here.

Further research should be done in Canada about the physiological affects of adult anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication prescribed to children with alleged “behavioral disorders.” Further research should be done on ANY product claiming real physiological change. 

I find the distinction between discouraging and eliminating behavior to be difficult to swallow. On the one hand, governments discourage behavior through warning labels (rarely), advertisements (often) or taxation (often). On the other (as is the case with tobacco, alcohol, fast food and gambling), they profit from that behavior. Tobacco is the only widely available commodity that is regulated through warning labels. But considering how much damage alcohol does, to relationships, families, safety and individual health, shouldn’t a bottle of Absolute allude to the dangers of alcoholic spousal abuse? To addiction? To alcohol poisoning and liver failure?

By governments taking vices under their protection (like the cases of the MLC or the Manitoba gaming commission), are they regulating the behavior or monopolizing the profits from it?

How can governments regulate our quick-fix society without looking like the champions of vice and dangerous experimentation?