This all seems entirely reasonable. This is a cost benefit calculation. If bad drugs kill 1 person, and drug shortage kills 100, what do you choose?

The FDA chose a practical middle ground. Ban what isn't critical, and for those that are, they put additional mitigations in place:

> Exempted drugs were sent to the United States in a “phased manner,” the company said, with third-party oversight and safety testing.

>“The odds of these drugs actually not being safe or effective is tiny because of the safeguards,” said one former FDA official involved in the exemptions who declined to be named because he still works in the industry and fears professional retribution. “Even though the facility sucks, it’s getting tested more often and it’s having independent eyes on it.”

▲

Amezarak 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Then they should have been transparent about it.

	▲	s1artibartfast 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I probably agree with transparency, there is very little information on the ways in which the FDA was not transparent. the article states "And the agency kept the exemptions largely hidden from the public and from Congress." How so, are the examples? The FDA maintains a public red list of companies with import bans, and a green list companies operating under exemptions. What transparency are we talking about?