health

"Bottled water sales in the past have grown mainly from consumers moving to water from soda and other sugary beverages," fueled by rising childhood and adult obesity rates. But ads for bottled water don't push the health angle, because many bottled water companies also sell soda. For example, Aquafina is made by PepsiCo and Dasani by Coca-Cola. Nestle -- which does not sell soda -- is now seeking to counter "concerns that bottled water is a bad choice for the environment" by raising concerns about the health impact of soda. Its new "antisoda" campaign is focused on "the Hispanic community because it drinks more bottled water than most other ethnic groups." Nestle's antisoda ads, which appear on U.S. Spanish-language channels like Univision and TeleFutura, promote the company's Pure Life bottled water. The ads feature talk-show host Cristina Saralegui, who says, "Drinking water instead of three sugary drinks per week for a year will spare you seven pounds of fat." The Hispanic marketing agency behind the ads, Castells & Asociados, says they have been "off-the-charts effective." Publicis' Dallas office is working on an English-language version.

Statins Cholesterol-reducing drugs called statins have been in the news lately following the release of a major medical study that found that statins can prevent heart disease and stroke in people with no previous history of heart disease.

Statins are among the biggest-selling family of drugs of all time. Many articles about the study mentioned above, including one on the credible web site WebMD, also mention the specific drug used in the study: Crestor.

The study has generated hundreds of articles, most of which repeat the same basic framing of the issue: if heart disease is the problem, a drug is the answer.

The same month that Martin Philbert was named the chair of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel considering the safety of bisphenol A, a defender of the chemical made a $5 million grant to Philbert's research center. "Philbert did not disclose the donation, which is nearly 25 times larger than the $210,000 annual budget of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, where he is founder and co-director," reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The donor, Charles Gelman, was once called "the second worst polluter in Michigan by the state's Department of Natural Resources." Gelman, a retired manufacturer of medical devices, is an "anti-regulation activist" who supports JunkScience.com, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Philbert said the donation would not impact his work. Bisphenol A is present in many household products, including aluminum cans, baby bottles and water bottles. Most studies on bisphenol A have linked the chemical to cancer, heart disease and reproductive failures in lab animals; "those that didn't find harm overwhelmingly were paid for by the chemical industry." Philbert's panel is expected to announce its findings soon.

"Documents and emails released this week ... suggest Pfizer's marketers influenced" research on the drug Neurontin "by declining to release or altering the conclusions of studies that found no beneficial effect from Neurontin for various off-label conditions," reports Keith Winstein. The Food and Drug Administration approved Neurontin for epilepsy and shingles. In 2004, Pfizer's Warner-Lambert unit admitted to promoting "off-label" uses. Companies can't promote drugs for unapproved uses, though doctors can prescribe off-label. Pfizer paid $430 million for the offense and claimed it ensured "there was no improper marketing after it purchased Warner-Lambert in 2000." But the new documents, which were submitted in a lawsuit against Pfizer, detail more recent attempts to boost off-label sales. After one study showed Neurontin didn't lessen diabetic nerve pain, a marketer suggested "delaying the publication for as long as possible." One researcher emailed that she was told "not to publish anything that damages Neurontin's marketing success." Pfizer also failed to publish results that Neurontin didn't ease post-operative nerve pain. Lastly, after the drug was shown to have no effect on bipolar disorder, a Pfizer consultant writing up the study excluded 16 patients and changed how other patients were characterized, thus "turning a failure into a success."

1974 ad for "True" brand low-tar cigarettes The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2008-2009 session today by hearing a case about whether cigarette makers have defrauded smokers with implied claims about the relative safety of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes. At issue is the question of preemption, a legal doctrine that holds that federal laws can take precedence over some state laws. The tobacco companies are arguing that they should not be held responsible for labeling and advertising that was approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, which has long required that cigarette packs be labeled as to how much "tar" and nicotine they deliver, argues that the agency itself was fooled because tobacco companies hid internal research data that showed smokers did not benefit from switching to light or low tar cigarettes. In August 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, in the landmark U.S. Department of Justice case against the industry, ruled that cigarette makers purposely misled smokers into believing that light cigarettes were more safe than regular cigarettes, and now more than 30 class action lawsuits on the issue of the tobacco industry's "light" and "low tar" cigarette fraud are currently pending across the U.S. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case could either affirm or invalidate all of them.

Medical research conflicts of interest are in the news lately, thanks to recent congressional hearings by Senator Charles Grassley. But are journalists part of the problem? A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that reporters for print and online media outlets failed 42 percent of the time to mention drug company funding of research cited in their stories. When asked, however, 88 percent of newspaper editors insisted that their publications "always or often" included funding information in their stories -- even though only 3 percent actually had a policy requiring such disclosure. "If you're wondering about professional standards," comments Merrill Goozner, "the Association of Health Care Journalists lists reporting the financing of research and conflicts of interest of researchers as its number one guideline for health care reporters. This latest survey shows that the word has yet to filter down to the majority of reporters out there." The JAMA study also found that 67 percent of news stories mentioned the brand names of drugs rather than their generic names, further reinforcing pharmaceutical industry marketing campaigns. Once again, editors of the offending publications claimed that their reporting practices were better than they actually were, with 77 percent of editors insisting that they always or often reported only the generic names of medications.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), a UK government agency charged with deciding whether drugs should be subsidized by the British government, has been criticized by some patient groups for refusing to approve new and expensive drugs. Groups including the National Kidney Federation, the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, Beating Bowel Cancer, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Alzheimer's Society have all objected against NICE decisions. "All of these charities received sums of up to six figures from drug companies in 2007," reports Jeremy Laurance, the health editor with The Independent. "A positive decision by NICE on a drug not only guarantees sales to the NHS but can influence global markets worth billions of pounds. Yet none of the charities named has criticised the high prices charged by the pharmaceutical companies for their products in their recent campaigns," he wrote.

On October 1, 2008, the city of San Francisco put a law into effect that prohibits the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies. Walgreens drug store chain and Altria/Philip Morris have filed lawsuits against the city over the measure. In a September 30, 2008 statement about the new law, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom related the city's simple rationale: "Pharmacies should be places where people go to get better, not where people go to get cancer."

Familiar corner drug store chains like Rite Aid and Walgreens have long cultivated an image of being all about health. Their web sites feature photos of friendly-looking pharmacists in white coats ready to help us with our health care needs. The Rite Aid company Web site tells us they are "committed to the healthcare needs of our customers." CVS says its vision is to "strive to improve the quality of human life" by making "high-quality health and pharmacy services safe" and easy to access. Walgreens says it stands ready to help people by supplying "health and wellness products" and health information. If all this makes you feel that these drugstore chains have your best interests at heart, it's certainly by design. But don't be taken in too easily.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to end "a six-year-old battle between career EPA scientists" who want to regulate a chemical linked to thyroid problems in pregnant women and children, and the White House and Pentagon, where officials oppose setting a drinking-water safety standard for the chemical, perchlorate. Guess who's likely to win? The EPA's "preliminary regulatory determination," obtained by the Washington Post, claims that setting a perchlorate drinking-water standard wouldn't result in a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems." The document was heavily edited by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Among the OMB's comments was "that there was 'no need'" to include "detailed data" that showed that "infants would be exposed to perchlorate levels above" levels deemed safe by the National Academy of Sciences. Perchlorate is present in rocket fuel; many contaminated water sources are near military bases. In an attempt to avoid costly clean-ups, defense companies formed the Perchlorate Study Group, which has questioned whether perchlorate in drinking water poses a health problem.

The Burson-Marsteller PR firm did pro bono communications and media relations support for America's Health Care at Risk: Finding a Cure, which is billed as "a bi-partisan conference bringing together major stakeholders in the health care debate for a high-level dialogue aimed at generating real and lasting solutions." While organizers of the conference were thrilled to have the free help, they may have been wise to check on B-M's health credentials. B-M has had a close relationship with cigarette maker Philip Morris and the tobacco industry as a whole over the years, having organized the smokers' rights group the National Smokers Alliance for PM in the early 1990s. In addition, B-M has performed crisis management work for corporate clients on a variety of issues, including Salmonella (Schwan's and Jewel Supermarkets), worldwide product recall and relaunch (Perrier), and Mad cow disease/BSE (McDonald's and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association). B-M is glad for the opportunity to burnish its image. Chris Foster, Chair of Burson-Marsteller's U.S. Health Care Practice said, "We are proud to be part of this bi-partisan effort to develop real solutions for one of the major challenges facing the U.S. today."