White House Asks FDA To Review Pharma Advertising On TV (whitehouse.gov)
- Reference: 0179145114
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/09/10/2053200/white-house-asks-fda-to-review-pharma-advertising-on-tv
- Source link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/memorandum-for-the-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-the-commissioner-of-food-and-drugs/
> The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall therefore take appropriate action to ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, including by increasing the amount of information regarding any risks associated with the use of any such prescription drug required to be provided in prescription drug advertisements, to the extent permitted by applicable law. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall take appropriate action to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's prescription drug advertising provisions, and otherwise ensure truthful and non-misleading information in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements.
"Advertising dollars is a major avenue for pharmaceutical companies to influence news and attempt to shape public opinion," comments sinij. "Advertising was a major contributor to painkiller addiction, where networks were hesitant to cover early reports of addictiveness. It is likely directly contributing today to lack of critical coverage of Ozempic. It is just too big of a conflict of interest to allow to stand."
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/memorandum-for-the-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-the-commissioner-of-food-and-drugs/
[2] https://slashdot.org/~sinij
Ads on TV (Score:3)
Oh, I remember those! That's what I used to skip over back when I had a Tivo.
Kinda makes me wonder if they even have authority over this when it comes to streaming services. Can't they basically run whatever sort of ads they want since they're not using the airwaves? Of course, the whole point of the obnoxious ads isn't really to sell you things, it's to convince you it's worth moving up to the ad-free subscription tier. Now I'm thinking even that should have some sort of disclaimer...
> Consumer warning: The Ad-Supported Tier may cause frequent interruptions in your programming, repeated exposure to local car dealership jingles, and a sudden urge to buy fast food you don’t even like. Other possible side effects include: seeing the same insurance ad seventeen times in one hour, forgetting what show you were watching after a three-minute ad break, and a creeping suspicion that you’re paying with your soul instead of your wallet. In rare cases, users may experience violent outbursts when an ad plays at a higher volume than the actual show. Do not use the Ad-Supported Tier if you are allergic to repetition, irony, or jingles that will haunt you in your sleep. Ask your wallet if the Premium Tier is right for you.
Re: (Score:2)
> Kinda makes me wonder if they even have authority over this when it comes to streaming services. Can't they basically run whatever sort of ads they want since they're not using the airwaves? Of course, the whole point of the obnoxious ads isn't really to sell you things, it's to convince you it's worth moving up to the ad-free subscription tier. .
You usually can't skip commercials via any type of streaming that has them. And some of the so-called "commercial free" streaming services changed their terms of service so that under certain conditions they can still show you some commercials. Paramount+ is one I remember that made that change.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh... yes, the "everything is Orange Man's fault" crowd.
Be right back... gotta make some popcorn and grab a brewski!
Anyone wanna place bets on how many anti-Trump or Republican posts we reach in 12 hours (within 20 of your pick, either way)? Starting now... 10:47PM CDT.
I'm putting 5 Dollars Monopoly Money on 75
Only Two nations allow drug advertising (Score:2)
The US, and ... wtf? New Zealand!?
i'm ok with this (Score:2)
Some quacks make outrageous claims. Remember klee Irwin talking about his daughters bowels [1]https://www.dailymotion.com/vi... [dailymotion.com]
[1] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x25v3m
I'm all for this (Score:3)
But it's going to last 10 minutes before the lobbyists hand him another gold trinket.
Re: (Score:3)
An alternate yet equally cynical view is that this is an attack by some pharma companies on other pharma companies. Selective enforcement is real.
Re: (Score:2)
Best case scenario is that RFK Jr. has a vendetta against Big Pharma and will push this as hard as he can.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah you won't like the replacement either.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when he was pushing against pesticides a couple weeks ago? Guess what happened to that
This is so weird to me (Score:2)
Consumers don't choose the drugs they're prescribed. Qualified, licensed, medical professionals do.
People should be going to their doctor and describing their symptoms. The doctor diagnoses the cause and prescribes something relevant to help with the root issue.
It seems entirely broken that this happens the other way around, where people ask their doctor for a specific drug.
The consumer advertising limit should be zero.
Re: (Score:2)
> The consumer advertising limit should be zero.
In the UK it is. It's illegal to advertise prescription medicines here.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll play devil's advocate for a bit...
> Consumers don't choose the drugs they're prescribed. Qualified, licensed, medical professionals do.
Part of advertising the drug is describing the symptoms they relieve. If people don't know that there is a treatment then they may suffer in silence than seek treatment. I expect the physician will be pressured by the patient to seek what was advertised but it's still on the physician to decide if the treatment requested is appropriate. I also expect that physicians will tend to agree to provide what the patient requested, either to simply make the patient happier,
Re: (Score:2)
Don't kid yourself. The advertising is for people like a friend I used to have. He'd go to the doctor and demand the drug he saw on tv. If that doc would not prescribe it, he'd find another.
Pharma has sales rep's that go see doc's to push their drugs. They give them free samples as well. Doc's aren't doing it thru tv. And I'd hope to god the doc's actually read the studies to see what the efficacy/side effects are. I don't see doc's often as still quite healthy but I know my Vet does for my dog.
Re: (Score:1)
> Don't kid yourself.
Didn't I mention that I was playing the devil's advocate? I believe I did. Twice.
> The advertising is for people like a friend I used to have. He'd go to the doctor and demand the drug he saw on tv. If that doc would not prescribe it, he'd find another.
That sounds like a case to argue against advertising for drugs on TV. Or, it can be considered the exception than the rule. I don't know what should be done here. If we pull the adverts off TV then people might not know of what treatments are available for a valid medical concern they have. If we keep them on TV then we can get issues like your friend. There's not likely a good option here, only the lesser evil.
> Pharma has sales rep's that go see doc's to push their drugs. They give them free samples as well. Doc's aren't doing it thru tv.
Well, I e
It's a good idea (Score:1)
But I have a hunch that there will be a large anonymous purchase of Trumpcoin and then this issue will be forgotten.
Lost art (Score:2)
Around age 14, in the no prescription public ads era, I was in the doctor's waiting room. He had copies of JAMA and some other journals on the waiting room table. I was leafing through one of these, when I spotted an eye-catching full page ad. There was a dramatic drawing of some large predator cat jumping out of the page, with the tag line "Morning Cats". I don't recall exactly which drug this was for, but the reference likely was to a morning spike in catecholamines, so it was probably for a beta block
Smart money says this was dictated by RFK (Score:2)
Cracking down on Big Pharma without actually doing anything to help America get healthier is totally on brand for the worst Kennedy in history.
An actually good move? (Score:2)
This is the only thing I've ever seen out of the trump disaster that I agree with. There's a constant stream of drug commercials on daytime TV urging you to "ask your doctor about" some targeted drug for a specific ailment. As if the doctor you are seeing didn't already know about it.
And then a stupefying long list of side effects spoken in quick-talk that are way more serious than the disease. They count on you going to the doctor and insisting on trying it though and he might go along with it just to get
Ad disclosures don't accomplish anything (Score:2)
Ads in general, and especially pharmaceutical ads, have perfected the art of dark patterns. They "disclose" all the awful side effects of a drug, while showing you people joyfully doing things made possible by the miracles the drug is supposed to perform. The disclosure is in a fast, monotone voice that drones on in the background. Nobody pays attention to these words, and the advertisers know it. Apparently, the government does not.
Ban drug ads entirely (Score:2)
Before 1988, drug ads were banned entirely on TV. Ah the good old days. They should be fully banned, patients should go to their doctors to figure out what drugs they need for their condition.
Ban it all (Score:2)
Radio, TV, Internet. Just imagine how much GlaxoSmithKline will save if they don't have to spend 3 minutes speed-reading the side effects after the commercial proper.
Advertising drives up costs (Score:4, Insightful)
First question: Who watches linear TV anymore besides the older retirees?
Second question: Why was this even permitted in the first place? Advertising is expensive. It helps drive up the costs of brand name drugs. There are very few countries in the world which permit pharma advertising on TV: The USA and New Zealand.
The world would be a better place with out any advertising. Make people seek out what they need. They will get a better deal if they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "advertising drives up costs" is entirely too simplistic. For a non-drug product, advertising increases your sales volume and allows you to move more product. The "cost" of advertising can be recouped from those extra sales, without touching the per-unit price. Especially in any market with healthy competition, increasing prices will drastically reduce sales volume and therefore profit. The cost of advertising is just one part of the complicated calculus of maximizing (price_per_unit x units_sold - f
Re: (Score:1)
> First question: Who watches linear TV anymore besides the older retirees?
You can tell by watching the kinds of adverts that run on that time and channel. The term "soap opera" was from companies selling soap during the day to housewives while the K-to-12 children were at school, and the husbands at work. I guess this still applies to some extent today but with more of that time to people that have legal problems, have some kind of disability from an auto collision or accident at work, or think up some other trope in advertising to connect the dots. It's kind of depressing to