Editorials
Our View -- FDA changes good for consumers
The biggest reform in the FDA in more than a decade brings long-overdue measures to protect the public from drugs with dangerous and undisclosed or unknown side-effects.
The bill passed by Congress and expected to be signed by the president should have gone further in some areas — particularly in preventing financial conflicts — but it is a major success.
Because of the power of the pharmaceutical lobby, the reforms in the bill would have been impossible to pass in recent years. That changed after Vioxx was yanked from the market because the blockbuster arthritis drug increased the risk of heart attack and stroke.
That event led to congressional hearings in which the FDA’s own scientists accused agency officials of applying pressure to alter scientific evidence about drug safety.
The new drug safety rules will give the FDA more power to order drug companies to perform clinical trials on medication once they’re on the market. That’s an important improvement over the current system in which the agency can ask for such trials but has no way to require them.
The bill also allows the FDA to dictate what claims a company can make about its drugs. Most consumers probably believed the FDA already did that. In fact, the system was a negotiation between the government agency and pharmaceutical companies over what claims could be made.
The other keystone in the bill is a requirement that drug companies post all their clinical trial findings and final study results on the Internet. That will bring a whole new level of scrutiny.
The bill also provides incentives to drug companies. If they conduct tests to determine the effect of a drug on children, they will get an additional half-year of market exclusivity.
One big weakness in the bill is that it doesn’t do much to regulate advertising of drugs.
But its biggest shortcoming is the inability to crack down on financial conflicts in the FDA. As it stands, people on the FDA Advisory Committee who have a financial stake in a drug company can still vote on regulatory questions about that company.
Still, the FDA will soon have tools at its disposal to better safeguard and inform consumers. The real test will be whether the agency fully uses its powers for consumer benefit, or whether it succumbs to industry pressures.
- Editorials
-
-
Our View: Get ready for more school cuts
Why it matters
If the community doesn’t prepare for a shortfall in school funding, budget-cutting measures will end up being poorly planned. -
Our View: Health care debate is not over
Why it matters
A vast majority of Americans believe health care must be reformed. -
Our View: A good state for women's athletics
There's a lot of prominent college women's sports events going on in Minnesota, not least of which is the Division III "frozen four."
-
Our View: Drinking enforcement must be fair
A plan to curb drunk driving that would lead investigators back to bars has merit if it can be proactive instead of reactive and use carrots instead of sticks.
-
Our View: Cut's costs exceed savings
Why It Matters
Taxpayers will pay more to treat the mentally ill as crisis center closes. -
Our View: Everyone is important in census count
Minnesota’s representation, funding and national voice, is on the line with the 2010 U.S. census.
-
Our View: Library plan touches on dilemma
For many, it was a jaw-dropping proposal. The city of Mankato has a tentative plan to reduce its funding to the Blue Earth County library and the Summit Center by 50 percent.
-
Our View: Students must be the top priority
Why it matters
Allegations of sexual misconduct by school employees bring focus to the need to
protect students. -
Our View: School athletics model may need work
Why it matters
School sports will come under increasing scrutiny with tight budgets. -
Our View: Students' efforts aid community
The students behind Brand New Image are great role models.
- More Editorials Headlines
-


