May 1, 2005
More on antibiotics and property rights
Given a discussion a couple of weeks ago on antibiotics, bacteria, and pro[perty rights, the following report from the Washington Post today is worth considering:
"The German pharmaceutical giant Bayer suffered a serious setback last year when a federal administrative law judge backed a proposed ban on a drug used to fight poultry infections at factory farms. The judge cited growing scientific evidence suggesting that the practice was reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics vital to human health."
Since I only just discovered I can add blogs, i don't have the system down yet to enable you to click a word. Here is the the article
The article also raises another problem for anyone like me who supports markets and democracy. It adds:
"Facing defeat in a three-year legal battle, Bayer sought help in a new arena -- Congress. In a letter written in the office of Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.), and with the assistance of a Bayer lobbyist who was a longtime Pickering friend, 26 House members argued that the poultry medicine was "absolutely necessary to protecting the health of birds." It called on Lester M. Crawford, acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, to set aside the judge's decision regarding the class of drugs. The Bayer product is known as Baytril.
"The Baytril case provides an unusual look at an attempt by lawmakers to influence the executive branch's handling of an important public health issue involving parochial economic interests and complex science."
This raises the question of how does a market society with democratic institutions handle the problem of money being used to purchase political favors. Libertarian orthodoxy likes to emphasize how government penalizes entreprenaurial activity - and often it does and this is bad. But the problem is more complex because successful businesses too often use their wealth to purchase favors and exemptions from government. This time they were caught.
"The German pharmaceutical giant Bayer suffered a serious setback last year when a federal administrative law judge backed a proposed ban on a drug used to fight poultry infections at factory farms. The judge cited growing scientific evidence suggesting that the practice was reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics vital to human health."
Since I only just discovered I can add blogs, i don't have the system down yet to enable you to click a word. Here is the the article
The article also raises another problem for anyone like me who supports markets and democracy. It adds:
"Facing defeat in a three-year legal battle, Bayer sought help in a new arena -- Congress. In a letter written in the office of Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.), and with the assistance of a Bayer lobbyist who was a longtime Pickering friend, 26 House members argued that the poultry medicine was "absolutely necessary to protecting the health of birds." It called on Lester M. Crawford, acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, to set aside the judge's decision regarding the class of drugs. The Bayer product is known as Baytril.
"The Baytril case provides an unusual look at an attempt by lawmakers to influence the executive branch's handling of an important public health issue involving parochial economic interests and complex science."
This raises the question of how does a market society with democratic institutions handle the problem of money being used to purchase political favors. Libertarian orthodoxy likes to emphasize how government penalizes entreprenaurial activity - and often it does and this is bad. But the problem is more complex because successful businesses too often use their wealth to purchase favors and exemptions from government. This time they were caught.