The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum / Did They Change The Rules On Drug Ads In Canada?

**Posted by RadioActive** September 30, 2024 11:43 am

I always thought drug advertisers in Canada could not tell you anything but the name of their product. It's why we used to hear a drug name repeated over and over, but we never got told exactly what the medication was for. After saying the name what felt like 18 times, you'd then be told to "ask your doctor if this product is right for you."

I could never figure out what the point of it was, since if you never knew what the drug was for, why would you think to ask your physician about it?

Several posters here replied that that's the crazy way such drugs are advertised under Canadian rules.

Which brings us to Monday morning and an ad that's been running endlessly on both AM640 and CFRB, among others. The spot tells us the name of the product - Cingal - but then it adds that it's used to relieve osteoarthritis knee pain.

That is the first time I've ever heard a drug advertised on Canadian radio telling you exactly what it's for. Did they change the rules here? Are they breaking any of the prohibitions by telling you what the medication does? How did this get on the radio, given what's happened in the past?

**Posted by paterson1** September 30, 2024 12:30 pm

No, drug advertising in Canada can tell you more than the name of the product. If the drug is over the counter they can advertise what it is for, how it works, what it does etc. If a perscription is needed the ad will normally advise you to talk to your doctor to see if it is right for you, and to go to their website for more information.

Maybe this rule doesn't apply to advertising for joint pain, don't know. Cingal needs a perscription.

Canada handles drug advertising the same as most countries. The US has different rules.

The thinking is that only doctors should recommend drugs that need a perscription, not TV and radio ads.

**Posted by RadioActive** September 30, 2024 12:54 pm

paterson1 wrote:
No, drug advertising in Canada can tell you more than the name of the product. If the drug is over the counter they can advertise what it is for, how it works, what it does etc. If a perscription is needed the ad will normally advise you to talk to your doctor to see if it is right for you, and to go to their website for more information.

And yet in this thread from 2021 on a similar topic, the opinion seems to be the exact opposite.

From SOWNY member Mavridis, among others:

Mavridis wrote:
It's illegal in Canada for pharmaceutical companies to advertise any prescription drug. The way they get around this is by having a separate organization (usually owned by the Pharma company anyway) produce a "reminder ad" (that's when you can only say the name of the drug). It's also illegal to reference the disease. American ad rules make them include the most common side effects which is supposed to take up at least half the ad. Same for lending commercials, but they're now getting away with speeding up the financial disclaimer to the point that it sounds less like language and more like a motorboat.

So if that's true, in this case, the manufacturers would be breaking the rules, since they actually tell you what Cingal is used for - osteoarthritis of the knees.

Hence the reason I wondered if something has changed. This one clearly states what the medicine is supposed to treat. Given the previous thread, I thought that was verboten in Canada.

Speaking of which, I literally just saw another TV spot for a drug on CBC Newsworld as I was typing this. It takes place in a hair salon. Here's the exact dialogue, verbatim:

---------

First Woman: Do you know what Contrave is?
Second Woman: I do.
First Woman: Oh, and you know about Contrave's program, right?
Second Woman: I know everything about Contrave.
Hairdresser: Contrave, Contrave, Contrave...
First Woman: Yes, Contrave! Do you know what it is?
Hairdresser: No.

Announcer over graphic of "Talk to your doctor.": Learn how to receive Contrave tablets at no cost.

------------------------

Well, that's clear as mud. Which leaves me with the one question I started with: what the hell is it and why should I ask my doctor? After 30 secs. of airtime, I still have no idea. So how come Cingal can hint at what it's for but not Contrave?

The law is ridiculous. What is the point of advertising a drug if you don't know what it's for? At the very least, the Cingal one makes sense. I just wasn't sure why this one was allowed but previous ones - including the one I just saw - weren't.

The whole thing is baffling.

**Posted by paterson1** September 30, 2024 2:02 pm

The law is not ridiculous. The point of the ad is to make you aware of the name. When you see your doctor ask them, or a pharmacist. Get the information from a professional and not a TV or radio ad.

Roy Green a few years ago was a pitch man for some remedy that relieved aches and pains. This lasted for about six months and then no more. Don't recall the name or if it was over the counter or prescription. Maybe Cingal or whatever Roy was pushing isn't classified as a drug.

Many countries don't allow any prescription drug ads, not even the ask your doctor variety that we have. Australia, and UK don't allow any form of prescription drug ads, but New Zealand has something closer to the US model.

Interesting in the US many ads also don't say what the drug does for you. However if it does, then you must list all of the possible side effects. Ads can no longer speed up the list of side effects when read, in some cases the side effects now take up to half the time of the ad.

**Posted by Radiowiz** September 30, 2024 3:00 pm

I found the coffee shop ad (for that R pill, whatever it is called) to be the most annoying. Just as they say what the pill is for, the coffee grinder makes too much noise. Very disturbing.
We shouldn't have to google what it's for. The ad should be allowed to tell us in the first place.

**Posted by Radiowiz** September 30, 2024 3:01 pm

paterson1 wrote:
The law is not ridiculous.

The law is ridiculous. We should be doing things the American way.

**Posted by RadioActive** September 30, 2024 3:21 pm

I don't know if the American way is the route to take, but I would never ask my doctor what "Drug X" is for if it didn't have any idea if it was relevant to whatever was wrong with me. I'm not sure if anyone would.

Would you go to your physician and ask for "Contrave?" Why? Maybe you're a guy and it turns out to be a birth control pill. It just makes no sense not to tell people what it's for. That's overly restrictive. And frankly, it really renders the commercials pointless.

(And by the way, Contrave is a weight reduction pill. Not that you'd know that from that stupid TV spot.)

**Posted by Glen Warren** September 30, 2024 8:37 pm

Radiowiz wrote:
I found the coffee shop ad (for that R pill, whatever it is called) to be the most annoying. Just as they say what the pill is for, the coffee grinder makes too much noise. Very disturbing.
We shouldn't have to google what it's for. The ad should be allowed to tell us in the first place.

I also agree with you about the annoying commercial for Rybelsus.... And as bad and as annoying as the English version of this commercial is, it is equally as annoying en francais. The same set-up... cafe, clientes, un moulin a cafe.... They even cast the same male customer (blue suit and beard) in the French version... he is bilingual.

Still, C'est terrible...

(Rybelsus is an oral semaglutide tablet used for improving blood sugar levels in adults Type II Diabetes)

**Posted by paterson1** September 30, 2024 10:02 pm

Just reading up a little about direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs. Looks like only the US and New Zealand allow this type of advertising. All other countries in the world do not allow advertising direct to consumers for prescription drugs.

The line to talk to your doctor is working. Over half of US doctors have felt pressure from the patient to prescribe a drug that they saw on television. Doctors even felt pressure from the patient when they told them that the drug wasn't necessary.

**Posted by Radiowiz** October 1, 2024 5:21 am

paterson1 wrote:
The line to talk to your doctor is working. Over half of US doctors have felt pressure from the patient to prescribe a drug that they saw on television. Doctors even felt pressure from the patient when they told them that the drug wasn't necessary.

So, from your perspective, it's better to have doctors that feel pressure because of what people found online after seeing a talk to your doctor ad rather than just simply seeing a TV ad and acting on it?

Nobody should ever have to google the information. The TV ad should just do all the work of informing, side effects and all. I believe very strongly FCC has it right and CRTC has it wrong. (in 2024)

**Posted by Shorty Wave** October 1, 2024 8:12 am

CBC’s Radio One program “White Coat Black Art” addressed pharma ads on their Sept. 28th episode
“What do “Ask your doctor ads actually accomplish”. Ad guru Terry O’Reilly is a guest and gives great insight. The episode is available as a podcast on CBC’s site and is worth the listen.

**Posted by paterson1** October 1, 2024 10:24 am

Radiowiz wrote:
paterson1 wrote:
The line to talk to your doctor is working. Over half of US doctors have felt pressure from the patient to prescribe a drug that they saw on television. Doctors even felt pressure from the patient when they told them that the drug wasn't necessary.

So, from your perspective, it's better to have doctors that feel pressure because of what people found online after seeing a talk to your doctor ad rather than just simply seeing a TV ad and acting on it?

Nobody should ever have to google the information. The TV ad should just do all the work of informing, side effects and all. I believe very strongly FCC has it right and CRTC has it wrong. (in 2024)

I don't know if this is even a CRTC rule. Probably Health Canada or another government department. Same in the US. When people go to the doctor with an ailment they usually don't have a drug in mind that they should take in the first place. The doctor recommends what to use. But it does sound like people are more likely to ask about certain drugs because of the ads.

Regardless of the advertising, most people are going to google for more information on what their problem is. Both allowing this advertising and not have their good and bad points. But it is significant that only the US and NZ actually allow advertising for prescription drugs.

**Posted by newsguy1** October 1, 2024 12:01 pm

I remember Charles Adler, (now a bogus senator) doing ads for the joint pain reliever (alleged) Sierrasil.
He endorsed it over and over claiming it relieved his pain like a miracle.
As with all of these drugs (alleged) if they really did work as their shills say the whole world would be using them, and everybody's doctor would recommend it.
Meantime that (alleged) fraud Dr. Pinkus still has his informercials on radio, hawking his suppliments that cure everything from depression to cancer.

**Posted by DirkSteele** October 1, 2024 1:36 pm

The Canadian rules (or lack of) do leave some room for creativity, although completely absent from the Contrave commercial described above. The US just spits out :60 with someone walking around while a VO spits out all the side effects. Spend any time watching US broadcast TV and you are slammed with these.

My favourite Canadian commercial was a short tag with an older couple sitting at a table, each reading and doing their own thing. The man looks up at the woman and says...."Martha". Cut to a big Viagra logo, 70's porn music, and a vo that says "talk to your doctor". There were plenty of other versions with different couples, including the woman initiating...."David". I thought they were great!

If those ads aired in the US....it would be littered with side effects and lose that comedic quick hit.

**Posted by Radiowiz** October 1, 2024 2:09 pm

A Very serious question:
What if a drug company decides to air American style advertising for their drugs anyway?
Who gets punished? Do the drug companies just shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, we have deep pockets to pay the fine..."
or what about the TV station/network?

LONG story short, if indeed some law is broken for a radio ad, (or TV...) does the station itself get punished? Or just the drug company...or what???