Truth in Advertising

It isn't often that the European Commission does something that I find simultaneously astonishing and hilarious - especially nowadays, when there is so much cause for serious concern in the European Union about the economy on the continent and the lengthening list of member nations having mounting problems with debt. But today's edition of the Telegraph (a London newspaper) brought just that combination of surprise and mirth. Sorry to keep you in suspense, but if you haven't already seen the story, I'll be coming back to that at the end.

"If we can't beat another dealer's price, we'll just GIVE you the car!"

I'm sure you've all heard one like that, and you realize just how ridiculous it is. If one dealer offers you a selling price of $25,000, and you then go to another, the second dealer is sure to offer you a lower price, unless he is short on inventory or for some other reason is just not trying to move cars that day. So the dealer who runs this advertisement will live up to his ad's claim of a $500 difference and sell you the car for $24,500. He will not give you the car.

Not quite so obvious are the ads for dietary aids and supplements that have small print saying the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease or condition.

Really? And you want me to buy it anyway?

Yeah, I know, there's one born every minute. And suckers don't notice the statement that the claims "have not been evaluated by the FDA" - or realize that this disclaimer should put them on notice that the claims are probably baloney.





Then we have direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Here the claims have been evaluated by the FDA, which doesn't allow manufacturers to make statements that are blatantly false. Unfortunately, a statement can be remarkably misleading without crossing the line into the territory of blatantly false, and the FDA seems not to take much notice of ads that are misleading. We do get fine print and rapid-fire, monotonous recitation of a litany of side effects. If you read or listen carefully, you will wonder why anyone would take this drug. It may cause your left foot to become permanently lodged in your right ear? Really?

A drug that may cause me to commit suicide? Great. That will cure my depression.





The ones that disturb me the most are the ones that you might suppose are the most accurate, because the audience is well-educated and naturally skeptical. These are the ads in scientific journals and news magazines published for physicians. I have been an ardent critic of the content of these ads for many years, simply because the chasm between accurate information (such as one might expect to find in the peer-reviewed articles in these publications) and promotional information (the content of the ads) is so wide.

Ads in medical journals are subject to a higher level of FDA scrutiny, but a recent study showed that no more than 20% of journal ads were entirely compliant with FDA standards.



You might think the journals themselves would scrutinize the content of these ads. I can tell you, as a reviewer for two major journals in my specialty, that trying to assure high quality in the scientific information presented in the articles is plenty of work. No one is volunteering to review the ads. If we tried to do that, we would soon find ourselves in an adversarial relationship with the advertisers. We could just decide not to accept advertising, but then the journals' subscribers would have to pay a lot more to cover the costs.

By now you can tell that I think we have a lot of work to do in improving truth in advertising. And then along comes the European Union to show, beyond any doubt, that it is possible to get carried away. Earlier this year the European Foods Standards Authority refused to approve a statement for use in advertising by distributors of bottled water, submitted by a pair of German professors, that claims drinking plenty of water is an effective way to prevent dehydration.

This was no claim of superiority of bottled water to tap water. Just plain old water.

According to the article in the Telegraph, "Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water."



A "clinical condition?" Like going to the gym for a workout? Sure, we could make sure we are well hydrated in advance (or rehydrate afterwards) by drinking Coca-Cola, but that doesn't mean water isn't effective for this purpose, and if Ratcliffe really believes water is not a better choice than Coke, he is just as foolish as he sounds.

These days I am anxiously waiting to see what the EU is going to do about the debt crisis spreading across the continent, at the same time our congressional "super committee" is trying to figure out what to do about our own deeply ingrained national habit of spending more money than we have. So comic relief is welcome.

In the words of Roger Helmer, a British politician of the Conservative Party and Member of the European Parliament, "This is stupidity writ large." I fully agree. I am grateful nonetheless, because sometimes stupidity writ large is wicked funny.