I was thinking the exact opposite. The Nanny state gets to regulate the products people use in the interest of national health. Cosmetics, food, cigarettes, fireplaces, violent video games, movies, cars...

>A good argument for national healthcare :o)
>
>
>>>SNIP
>>>>Wrong example - the Chinese are producing perfectly safe toys, cosmetics etc for EU market. It's a matter that nobody was checking on them here. Or that cosmetics aren't under FDA's jurisdiction. There's this guy Shapiro who is advertising his book on all the radio stations these weeks.
>>>
>>>That's what makes it a good example. The labor and products are all in China. The company is owned here. It is completely outsourced. There is no supervision and oversight there and no FDA, et al. It is one of the reasons for outsourcing. Cheaper for a lot of reasons. That doesn't relieve the owner of the company from liability, but it does allow him/her to get away with bypassing standards and guidelines and laws of this country until they get caught which is years later than had the factories existed here in the U.S.
>>
>>No, no, the cosmetics are not under FDA at all, with maybe a few minor exceptions. And for toys there's the same story - blaming China for it, while the same Chinese factories supply European markets with toys which comply with strict European regulations. Worse, the toys recalled from Europe for noncompliance end up here. And next year, China will impose the same measures for their own market, but exports are exempt - therefore, the importing country's regulations apply. Which means that the USA is slowly becoming a toxic junkyard, because it believes in business self-regulation. IOW, in case of some ingredients in toys, it's not that the owners of the business are avoiding any law or customs' scrutiny: there is none to avoid. It is not regulated.
>>
>>Couldn't find a link to the book, but I heard the guy loud and clear. It's that each time a harmful ingredient is found, the burden of proof is much easier in the EU, while here it is not only far harder to prove that it's harmful, it's also the cost/benefit analysis, where the story goes into the same, as the guy says, "Kabuki theater". The same motions in the same dance are repeated - the manufacturers immediately threatens with closing the production line because they'd go bankrupt if that particular ingredient was banned, and who says it's so harmful at all. Then they produce some junk science to spread some FUD, fire up the lobbyists and here we are, no law enacted.
>>
>>So, it must be that all the European and Chinese companies who had to accept the limitation which would have crushed the American ones are now out of business? The overregulation must have proven to be an obstacle to invention, and the products affected must be out of market by now, or just too expensive? Well, none of that - the invention just moved to a different level, and alternate ingredients were found, which cost the same or less.
>>
>>And the main reason EU government is enacting all these laws is, as he says, that they are footing the health bill. So they are taking steps to remove threats to people's health, which would come in form of expensive treatments if not taken. This limit the power of lobbyists there - they can't force the EU parliament to enact a law which would be detrimental to people's health, even in the long run. Here, however, nobody cares - everyone pays for their own health.