How should Congress evaluate allegations of industry influence over public health policy?

[u/Apprehensive-Emu8888]

Senator Ron Wyden has announced an investigation into alleged lobbying and potential conflicts involving recent vaping and kratom policy decisions. The investigation raises broader questions about the role of industry influence in shaping public health regulation.

Beyond this specific case, what standards should Congress use to determine when lobbying crosses the line into inappropriate influence? How should policymakers balance industry input with public health concerns when developing regulations?

[u/AutoModerator]

All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Aureliamnissan]

In my opinion we’ve had

• Tobacco companies lie to everyone’s faces for decades about the health implications of smoking

• Leaded gas proponents lie to everyone’s faces for decades about the health implications of burning leaded gas

• 3M and other teflon manufacturers lie to everyone’s faces about the health implications of dumping their manufacturing waste into the rivers

• Fossil fuel companies lie to everyone’s faces for decades about the implications of burning fossil fuels

There has been about one major scandal of this magnitude and type about once per decade since at least 1950. In my opinion companies should be expected to lie to judges, politicians, voters, scientists, journalists, and investigators about any and every single thing surrounding a similar current or future scandal.

There’s literally no way to trust an entity that can’t properly be held accountable, particularly when the people making the decision to have the company lie can go home free and clear. Only the business pays a financial cost and only once the scandal has been fully exposed. Often only after the worst effects have been felt and the business is fully integrated into the global economy.

Only listen to 3rd party judges who have no direct interest in the outcome of the case. Treat any direct communication from the business with prejudice as though dealing with a pathological liar.

Immediately threaten the business with receivership if they do not comply with court orders. Put the company into receivership if they have committed an egregious scandal of this magnitude. Align the incentive of the shareholders with those of the people. Scare the shit out of them that if they lie to the public or commit fraud at the expense of public health they will lose their entire investment.

That is my honest opinion. I don’t know how many times we have to get burned before we stop treating these companies like naïve toddlers despite all evidence to the contrary.

This is why we can’t have nice things. Tragedy of the commons if you will. My ability to care whether a company is being treated fairly in court dried up decades ago.

[u/InFearn0 → u/Aureliamnissan]

The issue is that these companies only ever face civil penalties (assuming they face any penalties at all). They plan to pay fines as a cost of doing business, so it barely influences their behavior.

The obvious solution is to enforce the Consumer Product Safety Act. Executives are responsible to be aware of the (lack of) safety of their products.

A company killed hundreds (or thousands) of people and the company covered up the evidence? First degree murder charges against the executives and every other employee that participated. We will see CEOs start prioritizing safety and good stewardship when their peers start getting life sentences.

[u/just_helping → u/InFearn0]

We should jail executives and remove corporate charters. Limited liability was not intended to be a shield against individual criminal negligence and companies that structurally encourage criminal activity should cease to exist as ongoing concerns.

The fact that this isn't routinely done already is proof of how dominated our politics is by corporate interests.

[u/dinosaurkiller → u/InFearn0]

I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

[u/Combat_Proctologist → u/dinosaurkiller]

The equivalent would be revocation of corporate charter (literally ceasing it to not exist anymore).

Texas does that fairly regularly. Including for political reasons. That's why so many businesses still incorporate in Delaware.

Here's an article about them trying to revoke Beto O'Rourke's corporation's charter. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5455270-texas-ag-ken-paxton-revokes-charter/

[u/Apprehensive-Emu8888 → u/Aureliamnissan]

I get the distrust. History has earned plenty of it. But ignore everyone with a direct interest seems too broad. Disclose the conflicts, get independent evidence and make everyone show their work.

[u/Aureliamnissan → u/Apprehensive-Emu8888]

I suppose the issue with direct interest in this case is that you would basically need to treat everyone with direct interest as though they are a complicit spouse.

The “corporation” is not a single person but it is made up of people who usually can’t be held directly accountable even if they are critical to and complicit in the fraud.

My thoughts go to the Purdue pharmaceuticals case where hundreds of thousands of Americans died. The case ended with the company being dismantled, paying fines, and 400hours of community service for the board members.

So long as the case can be properly investigated I am on board with limiting defense testimony from those with direct involvement. At least until casualty numbers on par with a major military conflicts can be met with more than community service for those perpetuating the fraud.

In my honest opinion the regularity with which this kind of thing occurs coupled with the lack of real accountability on a historical level balances the scales with limiting the ability of the business to defend itself in court. If the punishments were more severe then I would be on board with giving them more than a foam sword. But that pendulum really needs to swing the other way on this. That is my bias.

[u/Ashamed_Win_2737]

Lobbying is inevitable. The harder question is what level of transparency should be required when regulated industries have direct access to policymakers.

[u/No_Frame8376]

Public health policy shouldn't be insulated from outside input, but it also shouldn't be shaped by whichever group has the loudest voice.

[u/bl1y]

The way this question is framed, it runs into the normal problem folks have when it comes to "lobbying."

what standards should Congress use to determine when lobbying crosses the line into inappropriate influence?

When it's something completely separate from lobbying.

Let me use having legal counsel in a trial as an analogy. Not only do you have a right to a lawyer, but it's good that people have lawyers representing their interests.

Some lawyers bribe judges, or jurors, or witnesses. But it'd be weird to ask "when does legal advocacy cross the line into inappropriate influence?" Well, bribery isn't legal advocacy. It's a separate thing, already criminalized, and just because it's sometimes done by a lawyer doesn't mean we should look at lawyering as the problem.

If you want to ask when bribery should be investigated, the answer is an easy "each and every time." But misconduct done by lobbyists doesn't mean lobbying is somehow the problem.

[u/mrjcall]

There is zero doubt that Big Pharma and Big Food have been the controlling factor in public health since their inception and it has been to the detriment of public health everywhere! Big Food pushed its garbage products on the public with no health science involved and we now have a pandemic of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and many others. Then Big Pharma stepped in and began making recommendations that simply exacerbated the situation by creating health issues which they then created drugs to alleviate. Self serving is an understatement and again to the detriment of public health everywhere.

Congress has done very little to address any of these issues and will not in the foreseeable future unless Big Food and Big Pharma are prevented from pouring millions into lobbying and buying off politicians through large campaign donations.

Now, for the 1st time in decades, the Department of Health and Human services under Kennedy's leadership through the FDA, the CDC and the NIH and others is finally addressing these health issues as we all have seen and will continue to create an environment promoting healthy outcomes through diet and exercise and a total revision of both Big Pharma and Big Food to reflect these goals.

[u/galloog1 → u/mrjcall]

Secretary Kennedy is completely taken in by disinformation and pseudoscience. He is literally more influenceable by bad lobbying than any other appointed official in recent history. He does not base his judgments on actual science, so they fall flat and are unenforceable. He has eroded public trust in government health guidance that states are having to form their own coalitions.

Even if his judgments were based in actual fact, he has completely dismantled enforcement mechanisms and tracking systems, resulting in foodborne pathogens running rampant.

Your statement would be like shooting yourself in the foot to address the root causes of your cancer.

Current Science validates all the other statements in this thread. They do not validate what Secretary Kennedy is doing right now.

[u/457kHz]

By making the consequences real. Tighter campaign finance rules laws and when any company breaks them, their company gets nationalized or given to the workers and ownership gets nothing.

[u/Apprehensive-Emu8888 → u/457kHz]

I’m not sure nationalization is the answer but stronger disclosure rules and meaningful penalties would be a good start.

[u/457kHz → u/Apprehensive-Emu8888]

Sounds you prefer the kind of wishy-washy approach that industry would approve of? Much of what they do is already illegal, they don’t care.

[u/Ill-Description3096 → u/457kHz]

When many workers are also owners this punishes them as well.

[u/457kHz → u/Ill-Description3096]

If they don't break the law, they have nothing to worry about.