Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Pfizer Asks for New FDA Regulations, Not Guidance, for Social Media

Pfizer submitted comments to Docket No. FDA‐2009‐N‐0441 regarding Promotion of FDA‐Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools (find it here).

The world's #1 pharmaceutical company stands alone in calling upon the FDA to develop new regulations for the Internet and social media rather than issuing guidance that puts an "interpretative gloss" on existing rules.

"FDA should not try to fit the square peg of Internet and social media communications into the round hole of the Agency’s existing rules developed for conventional media," said Pfizer in its comments. "Rather, FDA should develop comprehensive new rules describing the actions manufacturers must take in order for their online communications to be truthful and non-misleading in the specific context of the online environment. The Agency should ultimately establish these new rules not in guidance -- which by definition cannot change existing rules but can merely provide an interpretive gloss on those rules -- but rather in new regulations. As discussed below, the public health would be benefitted by the establishment of binding, legally enforceable new rules that have been developed by FDA specifically for new media."

Pfizer contends that "for FDA to regulate in this sensitive area through guidance instead of rulemaking inherently raises First Amendment concerns because of the nature of the process used to develop guidance, and the nature of the Agency pronouncements that result." Guidance, says Pfizer, is too vague and engenders "extensive litigation."

I don't know if that is a veiled threat or not, but Pfizer "believes it would be imprudent for FDA to repeat this pattern of seeking to address an entirely new field of conduct, where First Amendment rights are clearly at stake, without the discipline that comes with a rulemaking proceeding. Further, since the WLF litigation, the courts have only become more aggressive in policing FDA regulation of speech."

Ah Ha! WLF -- the Washington Legal Foundation, an organization "devoted to defending and promoting the principles of free enterprise and individual rights" (mostly for pharma companies) -- rears its head! I suspect, in fact, that the WLF wrote the first draft of Pfizer's comments or maybe it was Arnie Friede, former Pfizer Chief Counsel.

Pfizer predicts that vague guidance will inhibit companies from engaging in social media: "Many manufacturers simply will decide, as a risk management matter, that they will not engage, irrespective of any guidance from FDA, because the enforcement discretion reference means that the Agency regards that engagement as potentially violating a statutory or regulatory provision."

In other words, Pfizer believes guidance would stifle pharma's use of the Internet and social media rather than encourage it, which Pfizer implies should be the goal of FDA. "Such an approach [issuing guidance rather than new rules] would not be ideal, however, if FDA genuinely wants to encourage manufacturers to increase their level of engagement in online activities."

So the FDA is doomed if it does issue guidance and doomed if it doesn't. Either way, according to Pfizer, the FDA will stand in the way of free speech.


  1. Fair play to Pfizer - they have the balls to say what most savvy people are thinking and the dilligence to back it up with references, citations and solid rhetoric.
    A lot of the submitted documents were mincing around the issues and needs as only a spare bedroom tweeting consultant / Dinosaur PR firm / portfolio patent expiry Pharmaco (delete where applicable) who have never IMPLEMENTED a Pharma SM program and built digital assets could do.
    Also, kudos to Pfizer for attempting theoretical concepts for Youtube, patient communities, etc.
    They have been transparent, considerate and put themselves out there with some hard assets and industry supportive research for actually getting somewhere with SM marketing.
    (to follow the theme of recent Pfizer-related posts on this board - PFIZER IS NOT A CLIENT - but, my respect for them has just gone supernova).


  2. Wow! Supernova respect! That means exploding into dust in one final glorious burst, doesn't it?

  3. Yes, similar to having 'Viagra respect' for something. ;@)


  4. Hi John,
    Enjoy following you on Twitter. Glad that we are connected and I'm launching my web site next week to support Children's Hospitals. Have a great week!

  5. Anonymous9:20 AM

    @John Mack: ROFL


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...