| Comment Number: | 522418-02986 |
| Received: | 6/16/2006 7:57:35 PM |
| Organization: | RJones and associates |
| Commenter: | Rodney Jones |
| State: | CA |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
6/16/2006 To: Federal Trade Commission From: Rodney Jones, Executive Distributor Neways International Re: "Business Opportunity Rule, Matter No. R511993" To Whom It May Concern: I want to voice my opinion on this new proposition, the “Business Opportunity Rule, Matter No. R511993”. It seems to me that if the FTC was doing its job protecting the public from unsafe products used in common vat production of soaps, hair care, skin care, dental care, and home cleaning products. This wouldn’t even be a question, as a majority of the direct sales or multi-level marketing companies that come under the “Business Opportunity Rule, Matter No. R511993” are producing a far superior product than the common vat products sold by the major producers of the above listed product lines. I haven’t done an intensive study on the subject; however common sense tells me that the majority of the distributors that this rule applies to are honest hard working Americans trying to get their version of the American dream. The numbers of dishonest people in the business are a small percentage; their actions will quickly remove them from the market place. I do believe, however, that this is probably a program brought to your department by the manufacturers of common vat products. What causes me to believe this is there are more and more people going away from the “Big Box producers” because they want to protect their families from the toxic chemicals included in the common vat products. Most of the products that this rule would apply to are more expensive to produce therefore they cut into the profit margins of the producers of common vat products. If the producers of common vat products would use ingredients that cost more then the packaging materials they could compete with the businesses that these rules apply to. Instead of trying to compete they want to outlaw my and other peoples businesses and try to remove the dream from common Americans. I think this would be similar to a mutual fund prospectus, I ask you how many small investors, the common American, actually read the prospectus? I know I don’t I know what funds are recommended by my advisor and take his word for what is best. Yes the prospectus is a good piece of information and some will read it before investing. The majority of investors don’t read the prospectus. What is the cost to produce that the prospectus? How much money could be given back to the investors if the prospectus was only given out on a requested basis? I see this as an unneeded increase to my cost of doing business through unneeded regulation. Who’s job is this study justifying? I see it as similar to the butcher who opened a new store and the OSHA inspector came into his business and told him he couldn’t have his employees walking all day on the tile floors, he needed rubber mats for the employees to walk on. The employer spent thousands of dollars on rubber mats to comply with OSHA. The next week the health inspector came in and told him he couldn’t have rubber mats in a butcher shop and ordered the mats immediately removed. If the FDA had a record of doing the right thing and protecting the public I might be inclined to agree to look into this issue. From what I’ve seen the FDA can’t regulate pharmaceuticals very well. The FDA is in too many areas trying to do too much with inadequate personnel and no accountability. Until the FDA rectifies these problems within itself I don’t feel they need to be looking into any other issues until they can do a good job on what their mission statement is today! Thank you for my opportunity to voice my opinion Sincerely, Rodney Jones, Executive