Actions Of Regulatory Agencies Research Articles

The US battle against brand marketing: circa 1930-1980

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the debate about brand marketing that occurred as part of the 1930s consumer movement and continued after the Second World War in academic and regulatory circles. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents an historical account of the anti-brand marketing movement using a qualitative approach. It examines both primary and secondary historical sources as well as legal statutes, regulatory agency actions, judicial cases and newspaper and trade journal stories. Findings In response to the rise of brand marketing in the latter 1800s and early 1900s, the USA experienced an anti-brand marketing movement that lasted half a century. The first stage was public as part of the consumer movement but was overshadowed by the product safety and truth-in-advertising concerns. The consumer movement stalled when the USA entered the Second World War, but brand marketing continued to raise questions during the war as the US government attempted to regulate the provisions of goods during the war. After the war, the public accepted brand marketing. Continuing anti-brand marketing criticism was largely confined to academic writings and regulatory activities. Ultimately, many of the stage-two challenges to brand marketing went nowhere, but a few led to regulations that continue today. Originality/value This paper is the first to recognize a two-stage anti-brand marketing movement in the USA from 1929 to 1980 that has left a small but significant modern-day regulatory legacy.

Geographies of Risk, the Regulatory State, and the Ethic of Care

We examine the role of the regulatory state in the inequitable distribution of social advantages and disadvantages. To illustrate this, we examine the spatial distribution of exposures to air toxics from noxious land uses (commonly referred to as the environmental justice problem) and inquire into the nature of state action that would allow such inequity. Findings from our inquiry lead us to focus more closely on the administrative functions of the state, especially its role as a regulatory body. A case study focusing on health risks from incompatible land uses illustrates how spatial inequities result from the formally neutral rule-making actions of regulatory agencies and their particular organizational cultures. We describe the ethical basis of the regulatory state in terms of its formal, juridical, deontological underpinnings. In contrast to this stands the alternative ethical concept of care, which is inherently relational, contextual, and preferentially attentive to the needs of the vulnerable. We argue that the regulatory state can be reformed, building structures of care to better address issues of spatial inequity. We end with a discussion of how the institutional model of the caring state might be achieved in practice.

Drug safety: withdrawn medications are only part of the picture.

In a research article published in BMC Medicine, Onakpoya and colleagues provide a historical review of withdrawals of medications for safety reasons. However, withdrawn medications are only one part of the picture about how regulatory agencies manage drug risks. Moreover, medications introduced before the increased pre-marketing regulations and post-marketing monitoring systems instituted after the thalidomide tragedy have little relevance when considering the present drug safety picture because the circumstances under which they were introduced were completely different. To more fully understand drug safety management and regulatory agency actions, withdrawals should be evaluated within the setting and timeframe in which the medications are approved, which requires information about approvals and safety warnings. Studies are needed that provide a more comprehensive current picture of the identification and evaluation of drug safety risks as well as how regulatory agencies deal with them.Please see related research article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0553-2

Social and institutional challenges in species and ecosystem conservation: an appraisal of the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission

In the pantheon of U.S. environmental law, only one federal statute—the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972—has created an independent oversight agency with explicit authority to conduct appraisals of and make recommendations on all regulatory agency actions under the law. That agency, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, is the subject of our analysis. Using a semi-structured survey and participant observation, we assess the commission’s operations under its legislative mandate, using criteria from the literature on policy-oriented professionalism. Our findings indicate a dichotomy between the Commission’s oversight of other agencies’ marine mammal programs and the manner in which it self-evaluates, learns, and evolves on the basis of its experience, with strongly pragmatic approaches to its appraisal of other agencies’ programs, contrasted with weak appraisal of its own operations.

Is Political Risk Company-Specific? The Market Side of the Yukos Affair

The Yukos affair, a high-profile story of the state-led assault on a private Russian company, provides an excellent opportunity for an inquiry into the nature of company-specific political risks in emerging markets. News associated primarily with law enforcement agencies’ actions against company’s managers, not formally related to the company itself, caused significant negative abnormal returns for Yukos. The results are robust and not driven by a few major events, such as the arrests of Yukos’ top managers and shareholders. Stocks of less transparent private Russian companies have been more sensitive to Yukos-related events, especially employee-related charges by law enforcement agencies. The situation was different for less transparent government-owned companies such as the world-largest natural gas producer Gazprom: they appear to be significantly less sensitive to these events. Actions of regulatory agencies have had predominantly industry-wide impact, whereas law-enforcement agencies’ actions affected shares of large private companies, especially those privatized in the notorious loans-for-shares privatization auctions.

Commentary: Science and Politics: The Possible Regulation of Cancer Promoters

To address the problems associated with the regulation of tumor promoters, one must recognize that a regulatory agency's actions in the formulation of policy redound from a matrix of political, social and scientific pressures; each affecting the other, and all influencing the final policy outcome. Scientific understanding of the mechanism(s) of tumor promotion plays a determinant role in such interaction, for the selection of particular biological tests as surrogates for human response to chemical exposure provides the radical upon which such interaction occurs, industry responding to the legal, regulatory instrument that relies in turn on scientific confidence in required tests. These parties operate within the penumbra cast by political expedients, environmental action groups, and special interest lobbies whose concerns involve the cost of testing, the availability of resources, the consideration of particular chemicals of economic or symbolic value, and other such aspects of regulatory policy or its consequence. In examining the complex development of policy for future regulation of tumor promoters, we must attend first to the legal instrument framing such regulations, assessing probable impact on these various scientific, economic, social and political factors. Potential regulation of most tumor promoters would fall within the regulatory ambit of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, specifically the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). As with other regulatory acts, the making of public policy, in this case concerning the manufacture and use of chemicals, derives from two major concerns: the attempt to achieve technical analyses of risks and benefits as one base for regulation, and a gener-