I understand your viewpoint and used to have the same opinion myself. But the harm caused by coercively imposing the opinions of non-elected regulators (or even if they were elected) far outweighs any good it does, as we've seen vividly of late in regards the deadly COVID protocols, damaging lockdowns and other COVID theater, and the bioweapon "vaccines."

Back in the '80s, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, in Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach, argued that the FDA be limited to providing information so that people could make their own choices. NO COERCION. Freedom, in other words.

The FDA outlawed Stevia for years, starting soon after Monsanto came up with Aspartame -- without the FDA's action, aspartame would have had a very hard time taking over the non-sugar sweetener market because Stevia has been used by humans for centuries, is known to be very safe, and was already used in some zero-cal soft drinks and other products. FDA banned stevia so Monsanto could make $billions, not for any health concern.

That's one of the more benign stories about FDA action.

Problems of corruption and harm are seen in EVERY U.S. regulatory agency going back to the very first one in 1887.

From a 2009 investigative story about Obamacare:

"When Congress created the first U.S. regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, in 1887, the railroad barons it was meant to subdue quickly recognized an opportunity. 'It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of railroads at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal,' observed the railroad lawyer Richard Olney. 'Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. It thus becomes a sort of barrier between the railroad corporations and the people and a sort of protection against hasty and crude legislation hostile to railroad interests.'"

[Moving into the present, and returning to the topic of Obamacare, Mitchell continues]:

". . . The Democratic deal for the drug companies is, if anything, even sweeter than the Democratic deal for the insurance companies." (from Understanding Obamacare by Luke Mitchell, Harper's Magazine) -- Link no longer active.