Review of food and pharmaceuticals regulatory bodies’ operations is necessary

For a number of reasons, the current Supreme Court case concerning false claims made in Patanjali Ayurvedic ads has attracted a lot of attention. It is uncommon for the Supreme Court to demand that Patanjali entrepreneurs Ramdev and Balkrishna personally and repeatedly apologize for their contempt of court. The lawsuit is still pending, but the lessons learned so far are significant for everyone involved, including drug producers, regulators, the government, and most importantly, consumers.

The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the guidelines enacted in 1945 are the primary documents in this case. The 1954 legislation restricts how certain pharmaceuticals may be promoted and outlaws the advertising of drugs for certain ailments. It is illegal to market treatments for some ailments, including cancer, diabetes, AIDS, obesity, early aging, blindness, and infertility.

The legislation primarily addresses deceptive advertising that promises miraculous treatments for illnesses or makes fictitious or inflated claims about the potency of certain medications. The Central Government may enforce this law’s terms by taking appropriate legal action. The main laws controlling the production, marketing, and sale of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, medical equipment, and other related goods in India are the 1940 Act and the regulations enacted under it.

Many herbal remedies that promise to “cure” a variety of illnesses and ailments, including diabetes, thyroid issues, and even cancer, have been promoted by Patanjali. It introduced coronil during the COVID-19 epidemic, claiming to be a treatment for the illness. The product was recommended by India’s Health Minister at the time, Dr. Harsh Vardhan. The marketing claim was modified from “treatment” to “management” in response to complaints. In addition to offering treatments for a number of illnesses, Patanjali advertising often criticized the current medical system, stating that it was unable to treat certain ailments.

This infuriated the Indian Medical Association (IMA) as well as health advocates. The business was chastised after being hauled before the court for breaking two narcotics prohibitions. However, it persisted in running deceptive ads while disobeying a court order.

Beyond Patanjali, misleading advertising about medications, cures, and health is a significant issue. Ads and sponsored material making grandiose promises about treatments and cures for anything from heart disease to constipation are all over Indian newspapers and television networks (during certain times). Such statements from physicians and corporations are flooded onto social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, completely breaking the law.

It seems that “social media influencers” are jumping on the bandwagon and endorsing questionably safe health items. Large pharmaceutical firms engage in unethical marketing techniques, such as sponsored news, sponsorship of medical conferences, and gifts for physicians who prescribe their products, even though they generally abstain from direct advertising.

Even the IMA faced criticism a few years ago for allegedly promoting specific goods without providing enough proof of their effectiveness or addressing the moral dilemmas raised by doing so.

Our current predicament is not a result of insufficient or ineffective laws, but rather of the government’s slack enforcement of them and the regulatory agencies’ choice to turn a blind eye. Numerous committees have examined the laws’ applicability and the need for stricter regulations, since they are outdated and have undergone periodic revisions. There’s no reason the current provisions can’t be optimized, even if the process of change takes its course. This writer brought attention to Ramdev’s 2008 statements on HIV/AIDS treatment. The health minister at the time, Anbumani Ramadoss, is a qualified physician who persuaded the government to issue a notification to Ramdev. However, he quickly made a U-turn and went to a yoga class led by Ramdev in Gurugram, where the latter restated his assertion on the curing of HIV/AIDS. The Uttarakhand government was contacted by Brinda Karat, a CPM MP at the time, over false allegations, but no action was taken.

In this instance, the federal and state regulatory bodies moved in unison to postpone taking action before allowing Patanjali to continue making false promises. First, Dr. Babu KV, a health and RTI activist from Kerala who lodged several complaints against Patanjali, wrote to the Uttarakhand state licensing authorities, demanding action for allegedly violating the 1954 Act.

The authority could have taken action when Patanjali failed to comply, but it chose not to do so and instead wrote to the firm requesting that it remove the offending ads. In addition, Patanjali was given a way out by the authorities. The notifications were issued to the corporation in accordance with a particular regulation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which was under appeal in the Bombay High Court, rather than the 1954 Act. Citing the legal case, Patanjali remained unwavering. 2018 saw the addition of the aforementioned regulation via an amendment, which required the pre-approval of ads including health claims.

A significant obstacle is the use of celebrity endorsements and health claims in relation to food goods. The authority for food safety has also been incompetent in this instance. Nutraceutical and food supplement advertising is an issue that requires immediate response.

We need a thorough examination of all laws and regulations pertaining to the marketing and promotion of pharmaceuticals, food goods, and supplements, including those governing Indian medical systems, given the shifting features of the media landscape and forms of direct and indirect advertising.

Stricter laws are required to prevent deceptive advertising, false promises, and celebrity endorsements of dangerous items (including surrogate advertising). The way federal and state food and drug regulatory organizations operate should be examined, and they should be given the power, independence, and resources they need to successfully enforce compliance and monitor it. All parties involved should take note of the Patanjali case. It is, after all, closely tied to people’s health and welfare.