From: Dennis Hans [hans_d@popmail.firn.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 6:51 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: public comment on commercial advertising and FDA oversight

Dear FDA:
  My comment takes the form of a 1,008-word essay, titled This is your
brain.  This is your brain trying to comprehend the different standards
for drug advertisements." 
  I examine the wildly differing standards for televised commercial
messages for drugs, depending on the category of drug.  Some messages
must provide balanced information that lays out risks as well as
benefits; others must be 100 percent negative; still others can be
mostly positive.  The degree of danger posed sometimes is a factor in
the standard; other times, it is irrelevant.  Sometimes the government
regulates aggressively, other times it leaves a drug industry largely to
its own devices.
  I look at prescription drugs, nicotine, illicit street drugs and
alcohol.
   Best regards,
    Dennis Hans,
11401 - 9th St. N. #2006
St. Petersburg, FL 33716
(727) 577-2127

Bio:  Dennis Hans is a freelance writer whose essays have appeared in
the New York Times, Washington Post, National Post (Canada) and
elsewhere.  He has taught courses in mass communications and American
foreign policy at the University of South Florida.  Among his areas of
interest are the mixed messages about mind-altering drugs delivered by
the government, pro sports and the media.  He can be reached at
HANS_D@popmail.firn.edu. 

Please italicize the words within arrows < >


This is your brain.  This is your brain trying to comprehend the
different standards for drug advertisements. 

by Dennis Hans

So you fellas want to advertise your drug on TV?  Terrific!  In case you
didnt already know, there are different advertising standards for
different drugs.  Let me tell you about them.

If your commercial is for a prescription pharmaceutical drug, it must
provide a fair assessment of the benefits and risks and describe the
side effects that can occur when the consumer uses the drug as
prescribed.  The Food and Drug Administration regulates these ads --
after theyve gone out over the airwaves for a spell.  If an ad is
misleading, the FDA has the authority to yank it off the air.  But just
between you and me, as watchdogs go the FDA is on the sleepy side. 
Unless you tell a whopper it wont even bark, let alone bite. 

If you want to advertise the drug nicotine, the message must be 100
percent negative.  Some of the best sponsors on teen-oriented shows are
the anti-tobacco groups.  Governments give them big bucks to produce and
air commercials on the dangers of smoking and the wickedness of tobacco
executives.  Thats only fair, considering for many years that networks
ran nothing but seductive ads that helped persuade millions of
youngsters to light up.  That wouldnt have been such a bad thing except
nicotine has one of the highest addiction rates. Now that wouldnt be
such a bad thing given that nicotine fiends, unlike crackheads and
alcoholics, arent dangerous to themselves or others when under the
influence.  Of course, the long haul is another story:  As a consequence
of their habit, 33 percent of smokers die before their time, which is
reason enough to focus solely on the downside. 

The networks also run ads by the tobacco companies themselves urging
youngsters not to smoke.  Mind you, they <want> youngsters to smoke. 
Companies know they gotta hook em early, because hardly anyone waits
till adulthood to give cigs a try.  No, these ads are an insurance
policy against future lawsuits:  They can say, Didnt we warn you when
you were ten not to take up smoking?  

One tobacco giant, Phillip Morris, also spends hundreds of millions on
ads to tell viewers about the million or two it spends to help women
battered by disturbed, drunken husbands and boyfriends. 

Now lets say you want to advertise a mind-altering, recreational drug.

Boob-tube barons accept ads for illicit street drugs -- negative ads,
that is, produced for the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP) by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.  The
Partnership is a band of dedicated advertising and communication
professionals who donate their time and talents to warn youngsters about
the dangers of those drugs that dont enrich the advertising industry.  

The government has zero tolerance for balanced presentations of the
risks, benefits and side effects of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine or
heroin.  You wont see any Tinseltown testimonials about coke being the
perfect pick-me-up after a hard day on the set.  The more negative the
ad, the better.  Why you can even imply that all illegal drugs are
equally dangerous.  For some strange reason most of these ads focus on
marijuana, which is the least dangerous mind-altering drug -- legal or
illegal.

The other recreational drug advertised on TV is alcohol.  Now alcohol is
alcohol, whether it comes in a shot of whiskey, a glass of wine or a can
of beer.  Nevertheless, the networks decided long ago not to accept ads
for liquor, only beer and wine.  Dont ask me why.  

A while ago I said its the job of the FDA to require pharmaceutical
makers to describe the risks as well as the benefits of their drugs. 
Well, even though alcohol is a drug and the D in FDA stands for
Drug, the FDA does not regulate ads for beer and wine.  Now that could
be because alcohol isnt as dangerous as Claritin.  No, wait a minute. 
It couldnt.

Even though the D in ONDCP stands for Drug, that office doesnt
regulate beer and wine ads.  Nor does ONDCP include alcohol in its
anti-drug ads.  Now that could be because alcohol isnt as dangerous
as marijuana.  No, wait a minute.  It couldnt.  Why even Barry
McCaffrey, the pot-obsessed former drug czar, calls alcohol the most
destructive drug in America.

Anyway, the Federal Trade Commission oversees alcohol advertising.  Did
I say oversees?   I meant overlooks.  Once in a blue moon it will take a
company to task for blatantly unfair or deceptive ads, but the FTC
believes self-regulation is best for brewers and wine merchants, who
couldnt agree more.  

The brewers drew up a hard-hitting voluntary code that permits them to
run ads on shows where 49.9 percent of viewers are under the drinking
age and to use humor and animated characters that appeal to kiddies --
so long as the humor and characters also appeal to 21-year-old frat
boys.  

Beer ads accentuate the positive.  Make no mistake, there is a positive
side:  Its a tasty beverage that gives shy guys the courage to talk to
pretty gals.  If you use good judgment you can enjoy it in good health
for a lifetime.  But somewhere in the ads youd think a conscientious
corporation would insert the words drug, addictive and cirrhosis,
or remind women that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading cause of
birth defects.  Maybe tell kids and teens they can die from an overdose,
and that alcohol is a prime factor in the leading causes of death for
young people -- not just drunk driving, but drownings, falls, homicide
and suicide.  

Alcohol is, by far, our most widely abused mind-altering drug.  Yet beer
commercials give viewers the impression everybody drinks -- white guys
who throw sofas out of third-floor windows and black guys who say
Whassup, not to mention dogs, frogs, lizards, lobsters and beavers --
and no one ever develops a problem.   

Brewers are a lot like Norman Vincent Peale:  They believe in the power
of positive advertising.

So, fellas, those are the standards.  Now which drug would you like to
push? 

The end