Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Truth in Advertising?
Yesterday's Washington Post "The Magazine Reader" column had a short synopsis of a Scientific American article on how drug and chemical corporations use "product defense" to whitewash the dangers of their products. The full article is only available via the hardcopy of the magazine since the SciAm site calls for a paid subscription and InfoTrac OneFile only provides an abstract. The Post article is copied as follows:
Manufacturing Doubt By Peter Carlson Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 24, 2005; Page C04 _____
Back in 1969, an executive at the tobacco company Brown & Williamson wrote a line that summed up Big Tobacco's attempt to confuse the public about the health effects of smoking: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public."
"In recent years, many other industries have eagerly adopted this strategy," David Michaels writes in an important article in the June Scientific American. The article is called "Doubt Is Their Product," and it exposes how drug and chemical corporations hire "product-defense" companies to create "scientific" studies that whitewash the dangers of their merchandise.
Michaels, a professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University, knows his subject. He watched these companies in action in the 1990s, when he was assistant secretary for environmental safety and health at the Energy Department and was trying to regulate the highly toxic element beryllium.
"If a pharmaceutical firm faces questions about the safety of one of its drugs," he writes, "its executives trumpet company-sponsored trials that show no significant health risks while ignoring or hiding other studies that are much less reassuring. The vilification of threatening research as 'junk science' and the corresponding sanctification of industry-commissioned research as 'sound science' has become nothing less than standard operating procedure."
To illustrate his point, Michaels recounts the tales of how drug companies used dubious studies to defend the pain-reliever Vioxx, which was shown to cause heart attacks, and the appetite suppressant PPA, which caused hemorrhagic strokes in young women. Both drugs have now been withdrawn from the market.
The Bush administration and its allies in Congress have aided these corporations, Michaels says, by passing a bill in 2001 that made it easier for companies to challenge government-funded research.
"I believe it is fair to say that never in our history have corporate interests been as successful as they are today in shaping science policies to their desires," Michaels writes. "We need a better balance between health and money." ¶ 5/25/2005
Manufacturing Doubt By Peter Carlson Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 24, 2005; Page C04 _____
Back in 1969, an executive at the tobacco company Brown & Williamson wrote a line that summed up Big Tobacco's attempt to confuse the public about the health effects of smoking: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public."
"In recent years, many other industries have eagerly adopted this strategy," David Michaels writes in an important article in the June Scientific American. The article is called "Doubt Is Their Product," and it exposes how drug and chemical corporations hire "product-defense" companies to create "scientific" studies that whitewash the dangers of their merchandise.
Michaels, a professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University, knows his subject. He watched these companies in action in the 1990s, when he was assistant secretary for environmental safety and health at the Energy Department and was trying to regulate the highly toxic element beryllium.
"If a pharmaceutical firm faces questions about the safety of one of its drugs," he writes, "its executives trumpet company-sponsored trials that show no significant health risks while ignoring or hiding other studies that are much less reassuring. The vilification of threatening research as 'junk science' and the corresponding sanctification of industry-commissioned research as 'sound science' has become nothing less than standard operating procedure."
To illustrate his point, Michaels recounts the tales of how drug companies used dubious studies to defend the pain-reliever Vioxx, which was shown to cause heart attacks, and the appetite suppressant PPA, which caused hemorrhagic strokes in young women. Both drugs have now been withdrawn from the market.
The Bush administration and its allies in Congress have aided these corporations, Michaels says, by passing a bill in 2001 that made it easier for companies to challenge government-funded research.
"I believe it is fair to say that never in our history have corporate interests been as successful as they are today in shaping science policies to their desires," Michaels writes. "We need a better balance between health and money." ¶ 5/25/2005
