Slashdot Mirror
No Evidence of Aloe Vera Found in the Aloe Vera at Wal-Mart, CVS (bloomberg.com)
From a Bloomberg report:The aloe vera gel many Americans buy to soothe damaged skin contains no evidence of aloe vera at all. Samples of store-brand aloe gel purchased at national retailers Wal-Mart, Target and CVS showed no indication of the plant in various lab tests. The products all listed aloe barbadensis leaf juice -- another name for aloe vera -- as either the No. 1 ingredient or No. 2 after water. There's no watchdog assuring that aloe products are what they say they are. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't approve cosmetics before they're sold and has never levied a fine for selling fake aloe. That means suppliers are on an honor system, even as the total U.S. market for aloe products, including drinks and vitamins, has grown 11 percent in the past year to $146 million, according to Chicago-based market researcher SPINS LLC. "You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products," said Tod Cooperman, president of White Plains, New York-based ConsumerLab.com, which has done aloe testing. Aloe's three chemical markers -- acemannan, malic acid and glucose -- were absent in the tests for Wal-Mart, Target and CVS products conducted by a lab hired by Bloomberg News. The three samples contained a cheaper element called maltodextrin, a sugar sometimes used to imitate aloe. The gel that's sold at another retailer, Walgreens, contained one marker, malic acid, but not the other two.
Article implies the FDA has no jurisdiction over this based on that they don't test cosmetics by default, but they do regulate based on it being a "misbranded" cosmetic product.
http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/G...
FDA doesn't really matter. It's not necessary for them to regulate these products for consumer protection, as there are other laws and agencies that can help.
FTC, Universal Commercial Code and U.S. Code Title 15 already cover Truth in Advertising and Fair Labeling and Packaging.
IANAL but here's one possible example that could allow consumers and attorneys to go after these guys: Title 15 Chapter 39 Section 1452.
(a) Nonconforming labels
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in the packaging or labeling of any consumer commodity (as defined in this chapter) for distribution in commerce, or for any person (other than a common carrier for hire, a contract carrier for hire, or a freight forwarder for hire) engaged in the distribution in commerce of any packaged or labeled consumer commodity, to distribute or to cause to be distributed in commerce any such commodity if such commodity is contained in a package, or if there is affixed to that commodity a label, which does not conform to the provisions of this chapter and of regulations promulgated under the authority of this chapter.
(b) Exemptions
The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not apply to persons engaged in business as wholesale or retail distributors of consumer commodities except to the extent that such persons (1) are engaged in the packaging or labeling of such commodities, or (2) prescribe or specify by any means the manner in which such commodities are packaged or labeled.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
For this exact case, regulation isn't necessary. You just need to make it illegal to describe a product as being a certain thing, and then it turns out it isn't that thing. We have a crime for this: Fraud. It's nice and simple. The unfortunate thing is that we probably have regulations that will limit the liability of WalMart when everyone sues them for this.
So you may actually be right. Get rid of those regulations and let WalMart experience the wrath of a million lawyers.
Yes, they didn't know and didn't care. AKA a wanton disregard. So let them sue their supplier to cover their fines. They put their name on it, it's their responsibility to make sure they know what they're selling.
Next time they'll choose a more reliable supplier.
One might also notice that this exposure alone would either incentivize the spread of the rule of law, or bringing back more industry to the US. All without a new government agency, new powers, or a bevy of new laws - but instead government just DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING in the first place.
In order to investigate, test, and do something about these kinds of instances, there does need to be some kind of government agency with the resources and mandate to do it. They need to have an appropriate legal framework to empower them to do it effectively.
Frankly, the problem is your political party, the Republicans. (I'm not a Democrat. They're generally not focused on this kind of problem either, unfortunately, but at least they don't actively oppose consumer protection.) Anything that could be described as the big bad dirty "R" word (regulation!) gets quashed under the pretense that all regulation is communist and stupid, and designed to hurt America. "Poor Wal Mart. The reason they're forced to buy substandard aloe products is because they just don't have enough money! We shouldn't punish them or regulate them. Instead we should be giving them more tax breaks. I'm sure having more money in their pockets will force them to spend it on quality control and additional jobs for Americans!"
Consumer protection measures that allow consumers to make educated (and non-fraudulent) choices actually makes for a market that is more free. Empowering companies to manipulate market forces does not make the market more free.
I see you missed the bigger point: you don't need the government to detect the "fraud", third parties can and just did. The nearly infinitely funded government didn't and we can have a detailed discussion about *why* but that gets us nowhere because they *didn't* and adding this product to the list of tested products is treating the symptom, not the problem. Should the government really be responsible for approving for sale every single product, regularly testing every single product and monitoring shelves for non-approved products? Surely no black markets would crop up if this were the case.
People forget that when government regulations decrease then consumers must be more vigilant when acquiring products and there is a larger market for people to do the checking and explain the results. This actually enhances the "premium" a company can charge for being ethical and providing good products. Generally it results in wins all around. Crappy products can still be sold to those who want the crappy product. Better products with established brands fetch a premium which promotes the idea that ethical businesses can actually make more money than unethical ones.
Today we are stuck with the lowest common denominator products because no one is concerned that a product might not be what it says it is. In other words, we got so comfortable that mommy government will protect us that we don't even try to protect ourselves which results in lower profits for ethical companies, which results in lower desire to be an ethical company, which results in more mommy government regulations that fix certain specific products but feed the above downward cycle.
Ironically, the product was manufactured in Texas with the aloe sourced from a company based in Florida. Natch.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once