doTERRA and Young Living have run afoul of the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA warning them not to make claims that their products can cure various diseases. Your first reaction might be to agree, to say that companies should not be allowed to make unproven and therefore possibly fraudulent claims.
But.
I wonder about freedom of speech. If a person truly believes a product can do something, shouldn't they be allowed to say so? Freedom of speech is being limited. The First Amendment is being violated. Even if the person doesn't sincerely believe the product can cure something, I wonder but what the First Amendment dictates that they be allowed to speak as they will.
Why do we allow one set of marketers to verbalize their feelings that their products help, but not allow another set to do the same?
Perhaps there is cause, for if someone is led to expect the product will perform, and it doesn't perform, great physical harm can result. My response to this is the same that I would give to those who see need for gun registration and/or regulation. With regard to guns, the Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. With regards to claims made by medicine makers, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. That is the highest law in the land. If we don't like what the Constitution says, we should amend it, not ignore it.
doTERRA and Young Living are now well-profiting companies, but the situation we are discussing also calls up the need to protect firms that are not so well off. You might say the FDA process is fair. Don't make a claim unless you can get your product registered with the that government body. But, is there a negative side to this? Does it give the pharmaceuticals a hands up on small start-ups? In some situations, does it shut out the small start-ups altogether? How much expense is required and how difficult is it to get FDA approval? If it is an easy process, then the rule is not so offensive. But, if getting FDA approval is long and difficult, then this limits the competition. It cuts out the small entrepreneurial companies lacking the resources to win FDA approval.
I don't believe our rules and regulations should eliminate the small person.
I wonder about the law against making claims of treatment, wondering if it did not result from lobbying from the pharmaceutical companies. I read doTERRA's response to the FDA's chastening, doTERRA saying, "Because doTERRA's Products are natural products and are not registered with the FDA as drugs, we are restricted on the health claims that can be made for marketing purposes." If I translate it correctly, that means if a product is not registered with the FDA, there can be no claim made that the maker hopes it will be beneficial as a treatment for a disease.
I guess we already knew this -- knew you need FDA approval to make a claim.
But, no, I did not know natural products cannot be registered with the FDA as drugs and therefore cannot be advertised as being beneficial in curing diseases. Is this true? If so, is it fair that a natural product might do as much good as the pharmaceutical one, yet not allowed to be marketed as being beneficial in fighting off a disease?
Can marketers only claim cures for artificial products? Are they prohibited from doing so if they sell a natural one?
Even if you believe some freedom of speech must necessarily be restricted, you probably would agree this is unfair and wrong and is, indeed, an encroachment on free speech. If a product does good, just because you start marketing it does not mean its benefits no longer exist.
The FDA could play its role without restricting free speech. If a company received FDA approval for its product, it could then advertise that it had that approval. "FDA Approved" could be stamped on the bottle.
To take it further, we could treat this the same as how we handle cigarettes. When products were found to be being marketed to cure diseases, the FDA could step in, test the product without being asked to do so, and if it, the FDA, did not find enough support for claims being made, require that a statement such as this be printed on the bottle, "The FDA has been unable to determine that this product has any notable effect in curing cancer."
Well, in conclusion, should we allow health-care marketers to make unproven claims, especially if they sincerely believe their products are beneficial? I say, only if we make a constitutional amendment saying something like, "Marketers shall not make claims their products can cure deadly diseases unless the Federal Drug Administration, through testing, finds ample evidence the product often does cure that disease."
And, I tend to wonder, even then, if I like limiting the natural-health industry's freedom of speech. I wonder if there some of the other approaches I have discussed are better options.
(This blog has been expanded and edited, the last changes coming Oct. 8.)
No comments:
Post a Comment