"Regulatory" institutions provide a bit of a conundrum.
Instead of having competing quality and certification businesses selling their services to producers so they can market their products faster we have one, centralized, monopolistic institution that has little or no competition. Whereas in the former scenario things like bribery or conflicts of interest (a revolving door between top echelon members of certifiers/producers) would instantly destroy the reputation and bankrupt the certifying company, in the latter you've virtually guaranteed rampant bribery, a revolving door, and an institution that is not really concerned about reputation because it has no competition.
In other words, ironically, this attempt to "regulate industry" has actually led to massive de-regulation of industry. Only the market and competition can regulate quality. Instead now you have an institution that empowers large corporations by helping to push through the legislation they want to cripple their competition and by giving them endless special exemptions.
In short, the FDA acts to remove normal market liabilities from major corporations thereby allowing them to do basically whatever they want. As an added bonus you have people trained to blindly believe FDA recommendations so instead of thinking for themselves they have placed their trust in an organization that has no interest in their health or safety and every interest in ignoring it at the behest of those corporations that we were all supposed to be protected from.
That's why I laugh when "democratic socialists" scream about big corporations and call for big government to regulate them. They're clearly thinking in very abstract terms which are completely divorced from practical reality.