Great explanation! Things get complex when those companies eventually start manipulating the base understanding of what is healthy. Like sugar is good and fat is bad "studies" they fabricated. Then, we're back to square one.
When something gets banned, they tweak the formula to make something similar, and that'll take time to get noticed and banned as well. Unless they have a "nothing new gets added unless okayed by some regulator" system, which can eventually be corrupted if centralized.
Yeah itβs only a straightforward answer on paper. The fact of the matter is itβs a tug of war between two untrustworthy parties.
I would like to see a narrow mission for regulators, perhaps decentralized through input from the States, than cannot be scope-crept and removing corrupt off-ramps like taking a private sector role immediately after a public sector one (Scott Gottlieb, for example).
Then I would like to see a complete severing of corporate subsidies, especially for things that are actively harmful to public health.
One of the most common mistakes I see is people assuming that we live in a pure capitalist system, when the government puts an extremely heavy thumb on the scale.
It's crony capitalism. Big question is if all roads lead to a big thumb. The thumb can be government, cartel, corporations, or some king or something
