Federal regulatory structure

We are also, both at state and Federal levels, dismantling the legal and regulatory structures that have maintained the monopoly power of yesterday s electricity sector. Twenty four states have already implemented some form of deregulation Industry and the states are taking the lead and moving forward, as they should. But federal legislation is still critical. 

Once a company identifies a compound or molecule with pharmaceutical potential, it enters a highly structured period of scientific inquiry that, if the agent is of value, culminates in the market launch of a new pharmaceutical product. Federal regulatory requirements act as a major organizing framework for these research activities, since they define a series of hurdles that companies must clear in order to gain access to the marketplace. 

The difference in regulatory structure is that FDA and USDA rules set generic standards, whereas the Meat and Poultry Inspection Program must authorize every single commercial product of each supplier, including proprietary mixtures, before its admission to a federally inspected food packing plant. 

But might either of these two observations lead to a diagnostic test for schizophrenia At the present time, the conventional thinking is that this probably cannot be. The illness has such social and genetic contributions, that no simple measure of a response to an almost-psychedelic, or minor shift of some urinary metabolite pattern could possibly be believed. No independent confirmation of these properties has been reported. But maybe these findings are valid. A major problem in following these leads does not involve any complex research protocols. What must be addressed are the present regulatory restrictions and the Federal law structure. And these are formidable obstacles. 

Federal regulation initially focused on issues of rates and shipper discrimination. Establishment of this new regulatory structure led to inevitable conflicts over the scope and jurisdiction of the newly formed Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). By 1910, both shippers and railroads were generally content with federal regulation (Teske et al., 1995). However, controversy continued with regard to the extent to which the ICC could make rules that would affect intrastate commerce. The Shreveport decisions resolved these issues in favor of the ICC— namely, by specifying that the ICC could regulate intrastate railroads rates, since these rates had the potential to affect interstate commerce. 

The NEPA of 1969, in an idealized view, systematized and provided a conceptual and structural framework for how the Federal government would deal comprehensively with environmental pollution in America and what would be expected of Federal agencies in implementing regulatory policies. Among its many provisions, NEPA contained several key ones it sets a national policy to ... encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment taking proactive stances to prevent environmental harm in the first place was another mandate. 

---