Editorial -- Amazon Wants to See Your Medical Records

Amazon is seeking to acquire 1Life Healthcare, a medical company that sees an extensive network of primary care providers. If approved, this will allow them to see the medical records of thousands of Americans who get their healthcare at one of 180 medical offices nationwide. What’s next? If I go to a One Medical clinic, will I start getting ads for over the counter blood pressure medications? If I get diagnosed with diabetes, will I start getting ads for products that counter it?

Despite bipartisan opposition to the deal, it appears that Joe Biden’s Federal Trade Commission is letting this deal go through. Writes Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO):

“This acquisition also further reinforces Amazon’s market power—despite, no doubt, the company’s protestations to the contrary. It doesn’t matter if the primary care market as such is presently competitive: by having its hand in dozens of smaller markets, Amazon positions itself to eventually emerge as the dominant player in each, as cross-subsidization allows Amazon to offer services at a loss and data-driven network effects allow Amazon to market at a level its competitors cannot match. A market might be competitive now, but a few years after Amazon gets involved, it won’t be.”

Writes Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):

“Amazon has a history of engaging in business practices that raise serious anticompetitive concerns, including forcing small businesses on its site to buy its logistics services as a condition of preferred platform placement, using small businesses’ non-public data to compete against them, and, as was recently disclosed in new documents from the House Judiciary Committee’s Big Tech investigation, potential restricting advertising by competitors who could offer lower prices and better service.” 

“Amazon still continues to buy up more and more companies. In fact, it has bought 118 companies in the last 25 years. This proposed transaction raises questions about potential anticompetitive effects related to the pharmacy services business Amazon already owns and about preferencing vendors who offer other services through Amazon. I also ask that the FTC consider the role of data, including as a potential barrier to entry, given that this proposed deal could result in the accumulation of highly sensitive personal health data in the hands of an already data-intensive company.”

Despite this, as of Friday afternoon, there has been no action taken by the FTC. When the right and the left get together on something, politicians need to listen. And then Joe Biden wonders why nobody likes him. He apparently doesn’t believe in your right to privacy.

Opinion -- USDA to Review “Product of the USA” Label

By the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a top-to-bottom review of the "Product of the USA" (POTUSA) label, which will inform a forthcoming rulemaking on this topic. Missouri Cattlemen's Association has long advocated for voluntary labels that meet consumer demand and allow producers to distinguish their products in the marketplace.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association recently filed a petition with USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) to eliminate the use of POTUSA and other broad U.S. origin labeling claims for beef products. NCBA commends USDA for the prompt action to address industry concerns regarding the misleading nature of this generic label.

"The 'Product of the USA' label is not subject to source verification, is not tied to any kind of food safety standard, and is applied by packers and retailers in a manner that does not deliver value back to the cattle producer. This label not only misleads consumers, it is yet another barrier to producers gaining leverage and distinguishing their product in the marketplace," said NCBA President Jerry Bohn.

Local leadership reflects that perspective.

"Missouri cattle producers have spoken out against misleading labels and source labeling mandates for years," said MCA President Patty Wood. "We believe in honest and transparent labeling and look forward to finding solutions that are fair to both producers and consumers."

USDA's announcement came after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held a public hearing on FTC-2020-0056, Made in USA Rulemaking, Matter No. P074204. The Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the final rule, to take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The new rule will strengthen FTC’s authority to enforce “Made in USA” labels. NCBA submitted comments on the proposed rule in 2020. NCBA's comments reminded the FTC that USDA has primary jurisdiction over all meat food product oversight activities, including the approval and verification of geographic and origin labeling claims.