Rand Paul's Freedom to Lie Amendment

[DanTex]

So usually, "you do agree that the FDA should make sure food is labelled accurately" is a good example to bring up when arguing with the loony libertarian "taxation=slavery" crowd. Unless you're talking to Rand Paul...

Rand Paul:

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement… as mitigating, treating, or preventing any disease, disease symptom, or health-related condition, unless a Federal court in a final order following a trial on the merits finds clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research that—

(1) the claim is false and misleading in a material respect; and

(2) there is no less speech restrictive alter- native to claim suppression, such as use of disclaimers or qualifications, that can render the claim non-misleading.

Note: not based on it being "more likely than not" that the claim is false, or based on no evidence that the claim is true, but based only on "clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research"; not an administrative decision, but a court finding; not a rebuttable presumption, but after a trial on the merits.

General Mills does not want the "freedom" to claim that Cheerios is the key to eternal life until and unless somebody publishes peer-reviwed scientific research saying it is not, and the FDA takes them to court and persuades a judge to issue a final order stating that there is clear and convincing evidence that it is not. But Rand Paul wants them to have that "freedom"--and wants the rest of us to have the unfreedom of having every reason not to believe what food and drug manufacturers claim.

...

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/05/rand-pauls-freedom-to-lie-amendment.html

[baldguy]

1. The return of quackery.

Morphine




Meth


And of course:




http://www.pharmacytechs.net/blog/old-school-medicine-ads

[lookingfortruth]

2. Rand is such a jerk! By his amendment Pink Slime would still be going into foods as Additional

vitamins and minerals. Mc Donald's can claim that it is part of a Weekly (if not daily) nutritional meal.


Problem is ANY FOOD COMPANY/CORPORATION CAN BUY Scientific Research these days to support any claim they want to make.

[zeemike]

3. It's the make snake oil legal act.

And we have to have a mountain of proof in Court to prove them wrong.
Me thinks he longs for the good old days when snake oil was a thriving business....I think the Getty fortune came from that.

[Roland99]

4. He *is* a doctor. So...he should know what would be considered beneficial

oh wait....he's an ophthalmologist???

oh, and he's a raving lunatic who's probably Ayn Rand's long-lost unspoken-of son?

[MNBrewer]

5. IS he a doctor? Or does he just call himself one? I want to see the original, long-form

medical school diploma, along with notarized transcripts.

[MattBaggins]

6. He is not accredited by an actual legitimate board which is why he is in favor of such idiotic laws.

He created his own board and accredited himself. He is part of the snake oil group and feels he has the right to make stuff up.

What kind of idiot wants to turn the scientific process on its head and say that burden of proof lies not with those making a claim but with those questioning it?

[harmonicon]

7. Wow! This is very telling.

It seems that he doesn't even understand what science is. This is about proving negatives, and that's not how science works. This is the sort of reasoning that crazy fundamentalists use when they have no defense for their positions; it's that point where someone comes out and says, "well, can you prove that xyz DIDN'T exist/happen?!"

The language in this really means that anyone could make any claim about anything forever. There will never be a scientific paper proving a negative, because that's not science. There will never be a peer-reviewed journal proving a negative.

[skepticscott]

8. The hard-core libertarian reply to this

Is that individuals and the free market should be the ones making these kind of decisions, solely, and that (in their theory), companies that make products that don't work or that kill people, will eventually lose out in that free market (and that any dead people left in the wake of this process weren't smart and savvy enough to be allowed to live anyway-though they never say that part out loud). In the libertarian worldview, companies that can lie and bamboozle people very well are as fit to survive as those that actually provide a quality product at a competitive price, and care about the well-being of the people buying it.

[DanTex]

9. Yes, that's true.

In fact, Milton Friedman was on record as being opposed to having a system of medical licensure. I guess if you go to a quack for surgery and end up dead then "next time" you'll choose a different doctor...

Ironically, one of the mechanisms he thought would ensure that only competent doctors would stay in business is malpractice lawsuits, whereas today right-wingers are trying to limit the ability to sue for damages, both in medicine and in other areas as well.

[The Wizard]

10. The cognitive dissonance

it burns.

[The Wizard]

11. Just another Teahaddist

trying to kill Americans by any means necessary and available. A disgrace to humanity.