From: Barbara Phinney [barbaraphinney@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:33 PM
To: McFarlane, Brent E; fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: 02N-029-Reqest for Comments on First Amendment Issues

PUBLIC HEALTH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ADVERTISING


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.

Sincerely,
Barbara Phinney and Brent McFarlane
12248 Phinney Ave.N.
Seattle, WA 98133