Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 14068

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.


Publication type: news

Harvey K.
Is regulation of complementary medicine marketing a joke?
Crikey 2008 Jul 29

Full text:

While there are plenty of critics of pharmaceutical marketing, at least Medicines Australia (MA) administers a quick, efficient and transparent advertising complaint system with a range of sanctions that are likely to make marketing directors think twice before overstepping Code boundaries.

In 2007/2008 the MA Code Committee finalised 71 complaints and found 54% in breach of the Code. The average time taken to resolve a complaint was 26 working days. Thirty one complaints (44%) received fines totalling $1.8 million fines, 8 (11%) coped withdrawal of material or cease activity orders and 7 (10%) corrective letters or corrective advertisements. In addition, MA Code reports are publicised extensively in both the lay and medical media; such publicity must provide an additional deterrent.

Contrast this with the self-regulatory Complaint Resolution Panel (CRP) that handles complaints against complementary medicines.

In 2007, the CRP dealt with 185 complaints about complementary medicines. Around 90% were found to breach the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. The average time to the provision of a determination was 112 days. The CRP can only “request” offenders to withdraw an advertisement or issue a retraction. It has no power to fine. Because of this, it also has no resources to produce reports similar to MA or even follow-up its own determinations. As a result, it usually takes multiple complaints before non-compliance is eventually passed on to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

The TGA (100% funded by industry) is totally non-transparent about any action it takes; it tells complainants nothing and publicises nothing. As a result, media coverage is the exception rather than the rule.

Given the above, it is not surprising that Big Pharma is regarded by the public as “bad” while complementary medicines companies such as Blackmores are regarded as “good”!

In fact, complaints about complementary medicines are more numerous, often more serious, and are increasing at a faster rate than complaints against conventional medicines; it is just that the former usually don’t receive any attention.

Which begs the question: why is there such weak regulation of these products?


  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Click to Register

(read more)

Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts

If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend

As an advertising man, I can assure you that advertising which does not work does not continue to run. If experience did not show beyond doubt that the great majority of doctors are splendidly responsive to current [prescription drug] advertising, new techniques would be devised in short order. And if, indeed, candor, accuracy, scientific completeness, and a permanent ban on cartoons came to be essential for the successful promotion of [prescription] drugs, advertising would have no choice but to comply.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963