Bad Product Of The Year Goes To… Rozerem

3 Comments

schoolbus.bmpThis dubious distinction was awarded to Takeda Pharmaceuticals by Consumers International, the federation of consumer groups, for its Rozerem ad campaign in the fall of 2006. You may recall, the drugmaker ran 10-second TV ads tagged ‘Back to School,‘ which featured chalk boards, school books, a school bus, and kids with backpacks. And the ad suggested asking “your doctor if Rozerem is right for you.”

But there was a problem - Rozerem was never approved for kids. And the FDA was asleep at the school bus wheel - the agency didn’t act until this past March, when a warning letter was finally issued to Takeda. By then, of course, the school year was more than half over. Hence, the drugmaker was cited by the global consumer group for “taking advantage of poor US regulation and advertising sleeping pills to children, despite health warnings about pediatric use.”

“That such a potentially harmful drug should be geared towards young children is outrageous,” the group states. “Almost as outrageous was the token action taken by the FDA…Takeda is a $10 billion pharmaceutical company. It spent $118 million on advertising Rozerem last year, yet the FDA issued no fine and no penalty. Just a slap on the wrist. This case demonstrates the lengths to which some drug companies will go to increase sales of their products, how direct to consumer advertising can promote irrational drug use, and how weak regulation can foster irresponsible corporate behavior.”

For its creative efforts, Takeda was named the overall winner for bad drug promotion, edging out Mattel (for stonewalling Congress about its product recalls); Coca-Cola (for marketing Dasani bottled water even though it comes from the tap), and Kellogg’s (for use cartoons and product tie-ins aimed at kids who don’t need the high sugar and salt levels in the cereals). Takeda should be proud it bested such distinguished brand names.

“These multi-billion dollar companies are global brands with a responsibility to be honest, accountable and responsible,” says Richard Lloyd of Consumers International. “In highlighting their short-comings Consumers International and its 220 member organisations are holding corporations to account and demanding businesses take social responsibility seriously.”

Hat tip to Pharma Marketing Blog

Jump to comments

Share

Comments

  1. Consumers International might want to check FDA’s authorizing legislation. They might be surprised to learn that the Agency has *no authority* to levy fines. It would have acquired that authority, at least in a limited way, under some of the more draconian language inserted in the PDUFA reauthorization bill, but that language was killed — not by PhRMA, surprisingly enough, but by the advertising and media companies that are the beneficiaries of DTC.

    FDA has the authority to seize “misbranded” goods (which David Kessler famously did to Procter & Gamble’s Citrus Hill Orange Juice, almost as his first act as Commissioner) and it has the authority to refer for prosecution by the DOJ. But the power to fine — which even the parking authorities of the smallest towns in the smallest states have — unh-unh.

  2. Hi Bruce,

    Thanks for pointing that out. I should have done so myself, but in my haste this morning, I breezed right past that point. Glad you wrote in.

    Regards

    ed at Pharmalot

  3. Can the DOJ levy fines under such circumstances (theoretically)? They have in a few fraud cases, although in a “minimalist” way.

Subscribe

RSS Feed

Comments feed for this post only.

Tags

Clear

Clear

© 2007- 2008 Newark Morning Ledger Co.  All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for trying out the new Pharmalot printing tools. If you're got any suggestions for how we can help you print better, please let us know by clicking on the contact link at http://www.pharmalot.com/