It appears that the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry had a paddy-cake relationship in recent years. Rather than acting as regulators, government agencies have been more "cooperative" with business under the Bush administration. The problem? This kind of "regulation" doesn't safeguard the public's health.

-source

Questions for debate:

1.)Why is it that mutually cooperative or voluntary regulation models inevitably leads to a compromising of health and safety?

2.)Is what happened at the FDA proof of the influence that the pharmaceutical industry exercises through political donations?

3.)Should government agencies have a more "attack dog" attitude towards the businesses they regulate?

1.)Why is it that mutually cooperative or voluntary regulation models inevitably leads to a compromising of health and safety?
Because the public interest is not something that business has any need or inclination to worry about - all that matters is stockholder's interests.
Only when a public health issue becomes public, and can be linked to corporate behaviour, does the shareholder interest coincide with the public interest. And only then do businesses take publicly responsible actions. And, even then, the company position is rarely to actively benefit the public good; more usually, the inclination is just to stop damaging it after they have been caught doing so.

2.)Is what happened at the FDA proof of the influence that the pharmaceutical industry exercises through political donations?
I don't know about outright proof, but I would certainly say it is a strong indicator that industry pays big donations too keep government agencies from prying too closely into their business.

3.)Should government agencies have a more "attack dog" attitude towards the businesses they regulate?
No. Attack dogs and lap dogs are not the only type of dog.
What's wrong with expecting government and it's agencies to be faithful but implacable custodians of the public interest? Sometimes that will coincide with corporate goals, and under such circumstances, they should be as friendly and as useful as a labrador. As soon as a company tries to do anything that goes against the common good, the dog should bare it's teeth and growl, to warn them away. And if it actually does do something against the common good, then it should be an attack dog, and rip out the throats of the transgressor companies. In this last case, fines are not enough. Companies should be put in some kind of corporate prison, or even forcibly wound up, with all the proceedings going to the public coffers and none to the stockholders.
Maybe then companies will start to pay attention to the societies in which they operate, rather than (too often) thinking only of the concerns of their owners.