Television is littered with pharmaceutical advertisements. And I do mean littered because there are so many of them. And littered, again, because false claims are tossed around like trash in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. Plus, you know that 93 year old guy who claims to feel 65 again because he’s been taking “Mother Nature’s Ageless Wonder” pills for the past 20 years is giving you a line of bull. He stands there with his thin, dyed hair and tells you with a straight face that because of this “medication” he takes no medication, and he and the missus still can get it on. I don’t know which is less believable; the claim that he takes no meds or that he can still perform in the bedroom.
Corporations used to be bound by “Truth in advertising laws” which were enforced and were taken seriously. These were Federal regulations that stated an advertiser could not include false or misleading statements, or omit important information, in the ads they produced and aired. Purposely influencing “reasonable consumers” with false claims was against the law. Businesses must have a “reasonable basis and competent evidence (such as scientific proof)” of a claim before it can be included in an advertisement. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the organization that enforces these regulations, and health and food products and OTC drug claims face the greatest scrutiny.
Since there are so many prescription and non-prescription drugs on the market today, the job of the FTC has increased. We physicians feel like there are entirely too many pharmaceutical ads on TV, and would hope that someone, or some agency, would exert their influence to reduce the number of ads aired, or eliminate them altogether. Do we really need an ad for a drug for ATTR-Cardiac Amyloidosis? I literally have never heard of that diagnosis, yet an ad for a drug to treat it is on TV all the time.
With OTC drugs, we have a different animal. The range of problems to treat is infinitesimal, and thus thousands of OTC drugs are available to fleece patients’ wallets. It’s the OTC realm where outlandish claims are made to lure customers into thinking drug X will keep you mentally sharp and physically fit by reversing the aging process. That’s where we need a watch dog to tell us when a product works and when we’re being scammed.
A study done 12 years ago, evaluated the frequency of false or misleading television drug advertising over a 3-year period from 2008 through 2010. Both prescription OTC drugs were studied, and the evaluation was based on “the most emphasized claim in the ad.” The claim was compared to real scientific evidence, and the results of the comparison were categorized as “objectively true, potentially misleading, or false.” Lumping RX and OTC drugs together, 33% were judged true, 57% were potentially misleading, and 10% were false. For prescription drugs the numbers were 43%, 55%, and 2%, respectively. For OTC drugs they found 23% true, 61% misleading, and 16% false. The lower percentage of false claims in RX drugs is thought to be because they face greater scrutiny from the FDA, drug formularies, and other sources.
An entity within the FTC, the National Advertising Division, is the meat of the regulatory process. It is the NAD that has the responsibility for assessing the truth and accuracy of claims made by advertisers. Participation in NAD oversight is voluntary, but refusing to comply with the NAD’s rulings brings about rebuke and demands that advertising be altered to state the truth. Most advertisers at odds with the NAD end up changing their advertising to reflect the truth.
Do you remember “Carter’s Little Liver Pills?” I do, and if you’re close to my age, you do, too. They advertised on TV all the time. I don’t know what was in them, but they had nothing that had the slightest effect on the liver. Besides that, why would you take a pill for your liver? What’s it supposed to do? What drug helps the liver? In sixty years of medical experience I have never heard of any drug, vitamin, or compound (except for maybe thiamine) that helps the liver, but there are volumes of drugs that are toxic and harmful to the liver. In 1951, after years of hyping his “little pills,” Carter admitted that there was zero evidence his pills had any effect on the liver and was forced to change the name to Carter’s Little Pills. It took until 1959 before that change occurred, but it did. The public then knew the truth about Carter’s pills.
Since 1934, the U.S. Government has found it important that advertisers be truthful in their marketing efforts. Last revised in 2015, guidelines from the consumer healthcare products association now have the following provisions:
- The package, label, and accompanying literature [of a drug] should comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act.
- Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive.
- Advertisers should have adequate substantiation (proof) for all product claims before an advertisement is distributed.
- Advertising of OTC drugs must urge consumers to read and follow label directions.
- Advertising should not lead to use by young children without parental supervision nor should the tone of advertising be directed toward young children.
- OTC drugs’ advertising should contain no reference to doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and hospitals unless substantiated by evidence.
These rules and regulations exist and are often put into play when spurious claims are made by products with questionable benefits. You know to be skeptical when a product claims to stop aging, clear your thoughts, and preserve your memory. Products like Geritol, Serutan, Doan’s Pills, and Carter’s Little Liver Pills are long since gone, being outed by science and truth. There are still dozens, if not hundreds, however, who continue to skirt along. They are becoming fewer and will eventually disappear, too. We consumers have to be wary and not be wooed by false claims they prey on our gullibility. However, with the help of science and watchdog agencies we are becoming smarter every day.
References: Faerber AE, Kreling DH. Content Analysis of false and misleading claims in television advertising for prescription and non-prescription drugs. J Gen Intern Med 2014 Jan;29(1):110-118.
Alexander GC. Capsule commentary on Faerber et al., Content analysis of false and misleading claims in television advertising for prescription and non-prescription drugs. J Gen Intern Med 29(1):180.
www.google.com/truth-in-advertising-laws.
www,Google.com/consumer-health-products-association/advertising-practices-for-nonprescription-drugs.
www.google.com/consumer-health-products-association/national-adverstising-division.
