Yeah, no thanks. My main issue with things like the FDA isn't that we don't need organizations testing, evaluating, and "approving" things. Its that the FDA is a monopoly. It goes both ways. They likely block things that they shouldn't and allow things they shouldn't. This coupled with the masses appealing to their authority means the masses blindly trust them.

Obviously there is value in testing, evaluating and grading products. I think we'd be better off with no restrictions but rather a competitive market for food products. Sure, there would be corruption. There is NOW corruption between industry and the FDA. But with competition you have pressure that currently does not exist. The ONLY way you solve the corruption problem is a public that is skeptical and have more choices in the role of food oversight.

This is a flaw in many anarchists thinking about the state. The state does many function that would be done by the market. The idea should not be we don't need the FDA but rather we need 100 FDAs that do not have the monopoly on violence.

Its none of my business if you wanna eat lab created meat/fish. But the FDA stamp of approval has far to much authority with many people. Then you have people that don't trust it at all and listen to clowns online. This is the dichotomy of state monopoly. This problem is all across the spectrum of things the state "regulates".

Governance is needed but monopoly governance is bound to be inferior to market governance as well as more susceptible to corruption.