Docket Management
Docket: 02N-0209 - Request for Comment on First Amendment Issues
Comment Number: EC -44

Accepted - Volume 1

Comment Record
Commentor Mrs. shirley sheehan Date/Time 2002-05-29 07:01:23
Organization Mrs. shirley sheehan
Category Individual

Comments for FDA General
Questions
1. Are there arguments for regulating speech about drugs more comprehensively than, for example, about dietary supplements? What must an administrative record contain to sustain such a position? In particular, could FDA sustain a position that certain promotional speech about drugs is inherently misleading, unless it complies with FDA requirements? Does anything turn on whether the speech is made to learned intermediaries or to consumers? What is the evidentiary basis of such a distinction? have you looked at commercials on tv and in print about prescription drugs? there are no restrictions there. speech should be free for all.of cou
2. Is FDA's current position regarding direct-to-consumer and other advertisements consistent with empirical research on the effects of those advertisements, as well as with relevant legal authority? What are the positive and negative effects, if any, of industry's promotion of prescription drugs, biologics, and/or devices? Does the current regulatory approach and its implementation by industry lead to over-prescription of drugs? Do they increase physician visits or patient compliance with medication regimes? Do they cause patient visits that lead to treatment for under-diagnosed diseases? Does FDA's current approach and its implementation by industry lead to adequate treatment for under-diagnosed diseases? Do they lead to adequate patient understanding of the potential risks associated with use of drugs? Does FDA's current approach and its implementation by industry create any impediments to the ability of doctors to give optimal medical advice or prescribe optimal treatment? of course there is over prescription of drugs and too many visits to doctors. why in the world should drugs that require a doctor visit be advertised to public and does it not naturally follow that will increase both visits and drug use. some common sense please
3. May FDA distinguish claims concerning conventional foods from those relating to dietary supplements, taking into account limits on claims that can be made about foods in the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, 21 U.S.C. 301, 321, 337, 343, 371? What must an administrative record contain to sustain or deny claims on food labels? How can information best be presented in a succinct but non-misleading fashion? To what extent do assertions in claims need qualifications or disclaimers added to the label to avoid any misconceptions that consumers may draw? Is there a basis to believe that consumers approach claims about conventional foods and dietary supplements differently? leave the natural health industry alone and let the people make their own decisions based on information received from sources other than government which seems too closely aligned with drug industry
4. Should disclaimers be required to be in the same (or smaller or larger) size of type and given equal prominence with claims? Is there any relevant authority or social science research on this issue? cannot read anything on any anyway
5. How can warnings be made most effective in preventing harm while minimizing the chances of consumer confusion or inattention? Is there any evidence as to which types of warnings consumers follow or disregard? no warnings please===no known deaths from vitamins but lots of problems with drugs approved by fda--rezulin and phen-fen for example
6. What arguments or social science evidence, if any, can be used to support distinguishing between claims made in advertisements and those made on labels? Does the First Amendment and the relevant social science evidence afford the Government greater latitude over labels? first amendment means free speech and if drug co.s are allowed to make outrageous claims in media then why in the world should there be restrictions on anyone
7. Would permitting speech by manufacturer, distributor, and marketer about off-label uses undermine the act's requirement that new uses must be approved by the FDA? If so, how? If not, why not? What is the extent of FDA's ability to regulate speech concerning off-label uses? fda should not regulate any speech
8. Do FDA's speech-related regulations advance the public health concerns they are designed to address? Are there other alternative approaches that FDA could pursue to accomplish those objectives with fewer restrictions on speech? do not advance anything but interests of drug manufacturers
9. Are there any regulations, guidance, policies, and practices FDA should change, in light of governing First Amendment authority? just about all of them---




EC -44