A Stitch in Haste

Wired Science Blog is shocked, shocked to learn that a scammer can actually sell sugar pills as a panacea:

In the last year, Texas-based Mannatech has sold over $415 million worth of its flagship pharmaceutical [sic], Ambrotose. They've relied largely on word of mouth and customer-to-customer sales, with Mannatech providing scientific information about the mechanism that allegedly makes Ambrotose effective against everything from HIV to cancer.

So what exactly is in Ambrotose? Sugar. And while Mannatech cites as evidence for Ambrotose's effectiveness the emerging field of glycobiology, which has shown how important sugar is to cellular communication, the field's leading researchers say that people already produce all the sugar they need.

Yes, there are indeed unethical "capitalists" who prey on the gullible. Point conceded. On the flip side, no honest libertarian would argue that there is a "right to use false advertising."

Meanwhile, here is the comment I left at WSB:

What is your basis for calling it a "pharmaceutical," since Mannatech is almost certainly not calling it that themselves (the label clearly says "dietary supplement")?

The point is relevant precisely because the FDA goes out of its way not to regulate scams such as this, while they do not hesitate to hesitate when it comes to approving new bona fide pharmaceuticals.

To the extent that there should even be an FDA, its pharmaceutical regulatory powers should be derived from economic efficiency arguments. Specifically, if the FDA determines that a drug is "safe and effective" (which are precisely the criteria for FDA approval today), then the manufacturer -- assuming no malfeasance in the approval process -- should be forever shielded from product liability resulting from that drug. In other words, no judge or jury should ever be allowed to find that an FDA-approved pharmaceutical is "defective" in a product liability lawsuit.

The "no malfeasance" qualifier is important: a pharmaceutical company that lies to the FDA -- or to physicians or consumers -- should obviously get sued up the wazoo if something goes wrong with their drug; that's a different fact pattern altogether. And if the FDA somehow drops the ball, then let it be sued, not the drug companies.

As for these rip-off supplements, "nutraceuticals" and the like: the opposite of "safe and effective" is "harmful or useless." But that of course should not be the standard for FDA regulation. It's a tempting warm fuzzy feeling to insist that "the government should do something" about the very existence of useless products such as Ambrotose (apart from any misleading claims -- again, that's a very different issue). But in reality the government has no business protecting fools from themselves. Being fooled is not synonymous with being defrauded. The latter falls within the proper scope of government; the former does not.

Those knowledgeable about such things can and should expose Ambrotose for what it is. But they should stop short of breaking out the governmental sledgehammer over it.