No one was arguing that point. The FDA does good things. The FDA does bad things. The question is whether the FDA is more helpful than harmful.
I for one am happy that the FDA inspects my food and medicine and holds them to a standard of safety. On the other hand they do make some medical devices and advances overly expensive to make and create a barrier to entry into the market.
Sure, I am also happy that there is some regulatory body at all, but without consistent testing criteria and regulatory standards, it simply cannot be as effective.
I worked with a programmer who had designed a watch that had an array of sensors in it with a wireless device to relay the info to your computer automatically. It would have been great for marathoners or people with heart conditions. He wouldn't even start the process of getting it approved, because he was too intimidated by the FDA. That doesn't necessarily mean he was right, but the chilling effect is clear.
Exactly, the solution is to fix those standards, not remove them. That's why I tend to not take Libertarian "certification bodies for safety, not 'regulation'" ideas seriously.
I for one am happy that the FDA inspects my food and medicine and holds them to a standard of safety. On the other hand they do make some medical devices and advances overly expensive to make and create a barrier to entry into the market.