Cathleen,

Seems to me that you immediately respond to a situation like this, where the government system might have been slow in responding, by saying the FDA shouldn't exist. You're jumping to conclusions. The FDA has lots of dedicated people working to check the safety of lots of things. it isn't perfect, but I would like to know what you think would be a better alternative. If people didn't have the government checking it, then special interests would dominate the market ,and we'd never get any real information. It would all be PR spin.

Third-party independent ratings bodies would be the right answer.  Multiple being better than one.  It would be up to consumers to verify product labeling.  They would be more apt to trust well-funded ones that do random spot audits and pull their certification and have online product cross-checks.

Have you ever checked for a 'UL' logo on a toaster?  That's the system I describe working.

What makes any operation the best that it can be? How about fear of losing the business. I see no possibility of the FDA losing the job of plant inspections. Even if there were a better way of doing it. And who will devise a better way of doing it if there is no chance of getting the job away from FDA. Without that, we will see more problems.  In all government programs, the money goes to those with problems.

Perhaps the tainted peanut butter sandwiches FEMA handed out were a way to sneak out all the evidence indicting the FDA?