From: Robert Vogel [vogel@snet.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:58 PM To: Gary Ruskin Cc: mpowell@fcc.gov; fdadockets@oc.fda.gov; tom@commercialalert.org Subject: Re: Tell the FDA: public health is more important than advertising Hi Gary, Share this message with the FCC also. They don't seem to get it. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Ruskin To: commercial-alert@venice.essential.org Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:17 PM Subject: Tell the FDA: public health is more important than advertising COMMERCIAL ALERT UPDATE, SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 TELL THE FDA: PUBLIC HEALTH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ADVERTISING SUMMARY The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking public comment on its authority over commercial advertising of products under its jurisdiction, and its power to restrict this advertising. (The legal term is "commercial speech.") The request for comment arises from recent court decisions that expand constitutional protections for "commercial speech." We strongly encourage you to comment. You do not have to be an “expert” to comment, and comments can be short. The deadline is September 13, 2002. To please the pharmaceutical industry, the Bush Administration appointed Daniel Troy as the FDA’s chief counsel. Mr. Troy is a leading advocate for constitutional protections for commercial speech, which would greatly benefit the tobacco, pharmaceutical and advertising industries. Not coincidentally, the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries give huge “soft money” campaign contributions, mostly to Republicans. (For more information on these contributions, see .) WHY COMMENT? Because public comments will strongly influence the FDA's decision on how to treat issues of commercial speech. HOW TO COMMENT You can submit comments to the FDA electronically at and then scroll down to "02N-029-Request for Comments on First Amendment Issues." Or you can email comments directly to the FDA at . You can send written comments by mail to: Dockets Management Branch, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Send two copies. If you have any questions, please call Tom Adkins, Commercial Alert's deputy director, at 503.238.7775 or email . SOME IDEAS FOR COMMENTS The basic issue here is whether corporations -- which are fictional "persons" created by law -- are entitled to the same First Amendment protections that real people enjoy, in regards to advertising. There are many reasons why they are not. * When corporations enjoy First Amendment protections it essentially nullifies the speech rights of individuals, since individuals cannot afford the massive advertising campaigns that corporations wage, and so cannot talk back. * Restrictions on the advertising of tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals are essential for protecting public health. Of all the problems facing our country, insufficient advertising of cigarettes, liquor, etc. is not one of them. * Corporations use advertising to drive a wedge between parents and children, and seduce children to nag for junk food and other items that many parents oppose. * Children are especially vulnerable to advertising, because corporations use sophisticated psychological techniques to trick them, and because children lack the maturity to deal with these techniques. * Due largely to the assault of marketing to children, there have been marked increases in marketing-related diseases, such as childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes. * For the FDA, public health should be a higher priority than protecting corporations or their right to advertise. * Corporations are far too powerful already. The FDA should seek the right balance between individuals and corporations in the arena of public health, and not tip it further towards corporations and their lobbyists in our nation’s capital. In addition, the FDA should work hard to maximize its authority to regulate commercial speech because: * Direct-to-consumer drug advertising exists primarily to promote the sale of drugs, not to educate. * Although the FDA does not currently have jurisdiction over tobacco, there are many proposals to give it such jurisdiction. If the FDA gains jurisdiction over tobacco, but has little power to regulate advertising, it would not be able to protect public health from the tobacco companies. Advertising of tobacco should be illegal in the United States. BACKGROUND Essential Action has prepared excellent briefing materials on the FDA request for comment, and commercial speech in general. They are available at: . WHAT ELSE YOU CAN DO TO HELP Please forward this email to your friends and encourage them to write comments to the FDA. Commercial Alert's mission is to keep the commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting the higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy. For more information, see Commercial Alert's website at Commercial Alert's materials are distributed via our email list. To subscribe, go to , or send a blank message to . Subscribers receive 1-2 emails per week. This note is posted at: . -- Gary Ruskin | gary@commercialalert.org Commercial Alert | http://www.commercialalert.org/ Congressional Accountability Project | http://www.congressproject.org/ phone: 503.235.8012 | fax: 503.235.5073