Healthy Skepticism Library item: 11869

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Ramer H.
Edwards proposes tougher regulations on advertising for new drugs
Associated Press 2007 Oct 28
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2007/10/29/16954/edwards-wants-twoyear-ban-on-new-drug-ads

Full text:

LACONIA, N.H. —Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday that prescription drug companies should wait two years to begin advertising their new products to consumers.

Outlining a plan to regulate what he views as misleading drug ads, Edwards noted that annual spending on such ads nearly has quadrupled to $4 billion in the decade since the government relaxed rules on advertising directly to consumers.

“You’ve seen these ads. You know who’s paying for them, right? You are,” said Edwards, who for years has derided ads that promise after one pill, “You’ll be skipping through the fields holding hands with your spouse.”

Top companies spend twice as much on marketing and administration as they do on research and development, he said at a town-hall meeting at Laconia High School.

“Basically, they do what they want, and they’re driving up demand for the most expensive and most profitable drugs,” he said. “The next president needs to deal with this issue.”

The two-year delay would prevent television ads from driving consumers to drugs that haven’t been proven safe, said Edwards, who also would require drug companies to get Food and Drug Administration approval before launching major ad campaigns.

“I think two years makes sense. I think it gives enough time for a drug not just to have been tested in clinical trials but to be out among the public, to see what kind of adverse reactions there have been,” he told reporters afterward.

Edwards’ plan also includes increased penalties for companies that violate truth-in-advertising laws and would require companies to disclose more information about a drug’s side effects and effectiveness compared to placebos and less expensive alternative drugs.

Doing so would ensure that “salesmanship is not trumping the facts, so people learn what the real risks are associated with these drugs,” Edwards said.

Edwards on Sunday began a four-day swing through New Hampshire, accompanied by his wife, Elizabeth, and their children, Jack and Emma Claire.

He told voters at several stops that they can help end the influence of drug company lobbyists and other special interests even before the election.

“If you, New Hampshire primary voters, said starting today, ‘I will not vote for a candidate for president who takes millions of dollars from Washington lobbyists, period, it would stop. I’m telling you, it would stop,” he said at a Concord middle school. “This is not about punishing anyone. This is about making the system work.”

Edwards has tried to portray Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who sits atop the Democratic presidential field, as beholden to Washington lobbyists because she accepts their money; he does not.

He said that in his days as a trial lawyer he would have been charged with bribery had he offered money to jurors he was trying to win over.

“In Washington, when they do it, it’s called politics,” Edwards said.

A spokeswoman for Clinton’s campaign pointed out that Edwards does accept money from corporate executives whose industries have interests in government policies.

“If Mr. Edwards is so concerned about the influence of special interests, he should give back the hundreds of thousands of dollars he’s taken from the pharmaceutical, oil and securities industries,” Kathleen Strand said. “Whether fighting insurance companies to insure every American, working to eliminate big oil’s tax subsidies, or fighting President Bush’s effort to privatize social security, Hillary Clinton has spent her whole career taking on special interests and fighting for America’s families.”