Pom Not-So-Wonderful

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charging Pom Wonderful for making unsupported claims in their advertisements, according to an article from The New York Times by Edward Wyatt (Regulators Call Health Claims in Pom Juice Ads Deceptive). 

Their advertisements assert that drinking the Pom Wonderful juice helps to reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction, but the FTC asks them to halt medical claims in their advertisements until they are supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because Pom Wonderful research, although they claim to have spent $34 million on it, is not conclusive and in some cases didn’t produce notable support statistically (Wyatt).

“… [The] results ignored the fact, the commission contended, that as early as May 2007 the company knew that a large study financed by the company showed no significant difference in arterial plaque buildup after 18 months between patients who drank Pom and those who drank a placebo” (Wyatt).

Ad from Fitness magazine, taken from nytimes.com

Pom wonderful retaliated by filing a lawsuit against the FTC arguing that it is their first amendment right to share their research findings with the public and issued a press release, which is posted on their website, “POM to FTC: ‘Stop Persecuting Pomegranates!’”

“Because POM products may in fact offer the promise of better health, we believe it is important to share the research results as they become available.  This is especially true since our products do not carry the risks associated with pharmaceutical drugs…. We do not make claims that our products act as drugs.  What we do, rather, is communicate, through advertising, the promising science relating to pomegranates.  Consumers and their health providers have a right to know about this research and its results” (POM).

So, who is right, Pom Wonderful or the FTC?  While it is Pom’s first amendment right to publish factual information about a food, is it the FDA’s responsibility to approve the efficacy of a food if there are claims being made regarding health? 

Time will tell, as the hearing is scheduled for May 2011; however, I hope that Pom Wonderful has more money stowed away in their research fund because it would be wise for them to conduct social research of their publics to find out if consumers will be less likely to trust them and their products now.  The research would help Pom to prepare for a possible drop in sales by gathering information to design a new campaign.  For example, did people buy the juice just because they like it, or because of the health claims communicated in its advertising?  I’m not sure, but at around $6 per 16 oz bottle, I’m guessing there’s more to it than just taste.

Of course, Pom Wonderful could just submit their findings to the FDA.  After all, if they “stand behind the vast body of scientific research documenting the healthy properties of Wonderful variety pomegranates,” what do they have to lose?

Health Insurance Companies Prepare for New Rules with Research

Starting today, the first changes of the health care bill go into effect.  According to an article in the New York Times, health insurance companies are working to get ahead by training employees to build better relationships with customers and researching and improving on technology to build better relationships with doctors and hospitals (Insurers Scramble to Comply With New Rules, by Reed Abelson).

“Under the new law, insurers that offer child-only policies must start covering all children, even the seriously ill, beginning on Thursday. Insurers must also begin offering free preventive services, and for the first time, their premiums must start passing muster with federal and state regulators by the end of the year” (Abelson).

According to Abelson, Blue Shield of California trained its employees about the impact the bill will have on them and on how to speak with customers by providing them with information to ensure they are helpful and answer customer inquiries correctly.  In addition, Blue Shield is reprogramming computer systems and establishing costs of new policies. 

All of these actions will improve relationships with customers, but the bigger problem will be improving upon the cost and quality of care by working with doctors and hospitals, which Blue Shield is planning to address by researching new ways to pay doctors and hospitals and upgrading its technology systems (Abelson).

“The challenge for the industry as a whole will be to demonstrate an ability to oversee patient care and work closely with hospitals and doctors to find ways to improve the quality of care while trying to contain costs. To that end, insurers are making big investments in technology systems and new areas of expertise” (Abelson).

Although over the years insurance companies and the U.S. health care system in general have had a bad reputation, it seems that companies like Blue Shield are trying to improve upon their relationships with customers, doctors and hospitals, which is the basis of public relations.  They’re using research and experimentation to determine the best changes they can make to comply with the new bill and improve quality of care.  It may take awhile to get things right and some companies may stumble along the way, but they’re headed in the right direction.

Medical Journals Lack Transparency

An article by Duff Wilson in The New York Times discussed a study released this past Monday from Columbia University, which revealed that 25/32 consultants of medical device companies in 2007 did not disclose their payment within their articles published the following year in medical journals Medical Industry Ties Often Undisclosed in Journals, by Duff Wilson.

(Image taken from Wilson)

This was a cross-sectional study, which is, according to Babbie, “…observations or a sample, or cross section, of a populations or phenomenon that are made at one point in time” (Babbie pg. 110) of orthopedic device companies and the financial disclosures of their consultants within medical journal articles (Wilson).  They studied a total of 32 medical doctors and doctoral researchers who published one or more journal articles in 2008 and were paid a minimum of $1 million in 2007, and found that the majority of doctors did not divulge their financial connections with the companies (Wilson).

Medical device companies examined in this study were: Zimmer, DePuy Orthopaedics, Stryker, Biomet and Smith & Nephew (Wilson).

“… $114 million went to 41 doctors, the study said, of whom 32 wrote or were co-authors on orthopedic journal articles the next year…. It said 51 of them, or 54 percent, did not mention the financial relationship with a company. It showed that 25 of the 32 authors did not disclose some or all of the time” (Wilson).

Similar to my last post, I find this behavior to be highly unethical for all 3 parties.  It is unethical for the medical device companies to pay consultants and doctors such outrageous amounts to review their devices, it is unethical for the doctors to accept that money and allow it to alter their views while writing the articles, but not disclose their financial relations with the company to the readers, and it is unethical for the journals to not be more aware of this issue and require that all writers disclose their financial relationships with companies, if any.  The research and reports are simply unethical because money clouds judgement.  One of the profesors from Columbia who wrote this study shares a similar view:

“Professor Rothman called for stricter disclosure policies, including precise amounts of consulting payments. He said journal readers needed the information to consider the potential for bias” (Wilson).

I think that it would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study, which is, according to Babbie, “A study design involving data collected at different points in time,” (Babbie, pg. 110) on this topic to see if this is a new development or if it has been going on for years.  If it has been going on, it would also be interesting to see how it has changed over time, especially in the amounts of money given to consultants and the level of transparency.

Off-label administering of Botox for Migraines

My name is Caitlin Mooney and I am 22 years old.  I am currently a graduate student at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, CT in the Public Relations program.  This blog is part of my Public Relations Research course and I will be discussing issues within healthcare and public relations research each week.


This week, I will be discussing off-label administering of Botox for a variety of medical conditions.  According to an article in the NY Times written by Natasha Singer, so far, the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of Botox to alleviate uncontrolled blinking, muscle spasms and stiffness, excessive sweating and, most famously, wrinkles.  However, the maker of Botox, Allergan, has been promoting the use of Botox for uses unapproved by the F.D.A. such as pain, muscle spasticity, cerebral palsy in children and most recently, migraines. While it is legal for doctors to prescribe drugs for medical conditions unapproved by the F.D.A. as they see fit, it is illegal for drug companies to promote the off-label uses.


"Court filings have described an aggressive marketing strategy, saying that Allergan financed and widely disseminated a video, featuring a well-known neurology professor, to promote Botox as a headache treatment; set up an educational Web site called the Neurotoxin Institute, registered by Ogilvy Healthworld, an advertising agency, to promote Botox treatments to doctors; and paid kickbacks to doctors to induce them to prescribe Botox" (Natasha Singer, After Fine, Botox Awaits Approval for Migraine - NY Times).


I find this to be highly unethical practice because according to the principal deputy commissioner of the F.D.A., these drug companies, such as Allergan, are promoting these off-label uses without proof or evidence that the drug is in fact safe to use for the medical condition they are promoting.  This puts patients at high risk for serious side effects.  I think that the drug companies and the doctors that are administering the drugs and accepting kickbacks are being negligent.  This is a public relations problem because if there is a large number of serious side effects from prescription of drugs for off-label uses, a serious crisis could occur for the drug companies and the medical practices where the doctors are administering these drugs.  This shows that the drug companies do not care about the well being of their customers, but are only interested in money, which severely tarnishes a reputation.


Throughout the article by Natasha Singer, it also mentions that Allergan has spent "hundreds of millions of dollars in medical research and development of new uses for Botox;" however, according to Earl Babbie in The Basics of Social Research, it is impossible for research to be totally objective because the researchers are human.  Therefore, if the drug company is conducting the research, obviously they will find and report evidence that supports the usage of their drug, not the opposite.  The drug company values sales and money, and it is hard to put that aside while conducting research, especially when "...Wall Street analysts have estimated that sales of the drug for migraines could reach $1 billion or more annually worldwide by 2016" (Natasha Singer, After Fine, Botox Awaits Approval for Migraine - NY Times).  "...researchers should not let their own values interfere with the quality and honesty of their research..." (Earl Babbie, The Basics of Social Research 5th ed. pg. 89).  In my eyes, this makes the research being done by Allergan to be unethical, and I would say that the off-label uses of the drug are unsafe.  Only when the F.D.A. conducts research and comes to a conclusion would I say that it's okay to prescribe the drug for off-label uses, because they are an objective party in this research.