The author should maybe consider that there are some possible downsides to a totally free market in food and drug products, and in particular look at the historical events which led to the creation and empowering of the FDA. e.g. "The Sulfanilamide Disaster" [0], which killed 100 people because a company used antifreeze to create a liquid form of their drug (and it would have killed more if not for FDA efforts to track down shipments and recover the drug).
The shortage is certainly a terrible thing. It also would be a terrible thing if contaminated formula killed a bunch of babies. It may be that we have not struck the right policy balance between a free market and regulatory controls, but this screed is far from a nuanced reconsideration of the role of the FDA.
Specifically they should look at the many times baby formula has been adulterated with literal poison and the horrors that nestle commits and then ask themselves if they really don't want some sort of safety.
Remember, this shortage is because a brand was selling dangerous formula and had to take it off store shelves
How about we bust up any company holding more than 20% of the market share for baby formula? And then we bust up any company holding 20% of the inputs for that? Recurse until finished.
Then, when one company gets contaminated, we only lose a maximum of 20% of the market.
The shortage is certainly a terrible thing. It also would be a terrible thing if contaminated formula killed a bunch of babies. It may be that we have not struck the right policy balance between a free market and regulatory controls, but this screed is far from a nuanced reconsideration of the role of the FDA.
[0]: https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/The-Sulfanil...