Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, Justice Sotomayor essentially argues that the FDA can decide that the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks at a population level, but if an individual experiences the harmful effects, as did Ms. Bartlett, a state can make the decision that the manufacturer has to pay for the harms caused, because it is the entity best suited to absorb this cost (and it is the entity benefiting from the profits of its risky product). In addition, the dissent suggests, if the manufacturer doesn't like the state's demand that it pay for the harms to its citizens, the company can decide to no longer market its drug in that state OR it can change its label or redesign its product, albeit with FDA approval. How would you respond to this argument?Explain