>Imagine that FDA wasn't there (or its European equivalent) and companies could sell you anything whatsoever as food. How often have you gone shopping with a pestiside testing kid, a bacterial testing kit and a geiger counter? How do you know that all 15 type of shampoo you can buy don't all have mercury in them?

Why does it have to be a government agency that's doing the testing? What's to stop a private company with a trusted brand from doing the testing and giving its stamp of approval? Their motivation to keep bad products from slipping through is very strong because their brand is their worth.

It is useful to note that it was the meat packers who lobbied the government for the creation of what became the FDA because they knew that the public would require some testing and the FDA would do it for little money. A private brand would of course have to charge more.

>Maybe I don't like Gmail and Gmail is the only mail in town, I can't force Google to change it. But can at least attempt to call my congressman if I don't like a particular upcoming bill.

If you don't like GMail, you can write your own email service. If enough people don't like it, odds are someone will have already written a competing service. Google cannot stop you from doing that. A government, however, can.

I guess the only problem with a private company instead of a governmental regulatory agency ensuring product safety is that the risk will mostly be born by the poor. Anyone unable to purchase a product tested by a private company with a good seal will be protected by nothing and nobody (not that they're always protected now).

Of course, I think there's a middle ground. Too much government regulation is terrible for everyone, but too little disparately impacts those of little means.

I'm not stating a point here, just describing how some people view things. If you want to argue with a right-wing American, find someone else.