The Belgian government is drawing up legislation to strengthen existing controls on advertising drugs and cures for specific illnesses, after a high profile row broke out between a consumer organisation and a public health foundation.
It is illegal in Belgium to advertise drugs for which the costs are reimbursed by one of the social security system's insurers. The advertising of drugs that are not refundable is permitted, but a special committee must first approve such advertising.
The law is unclear, however, when an advertisement refers only to an illness and not to a drug. Rudy Demotte, the Netherlands' social affairs and public health minister, has now decided to end the confusion by insisting that in future the committee has the power to scrutinise all public health advertising and information campaigns.
Figure 1.
The disease awareness campaign about athlete's foot (above) run by Hodie Vivere has been criticised by a consumer group for advertising by the back door
The new restrictions are the direct result of strong criticism from Test Achats, a leading Belgian consumer organisation, of a televised information campaign early last year. This warned the public of the dangers of athlete's foot and advised anyone with symptoms to see their doctor, without specifying possible treatment.
The campaign was run by Hodie Vivere, a non-profit making public health foundation of doctors who wanted to inform people about the illness. But Test Achats claimed that in effect the campaign constituted advertising by the back door for the drug terbinafine (Lamisil, produced by Novartis). Terbinafine is refundable and in 2002 was used to treat almost 80% of cases of athlete's foot. As a result, Test Achats made formal complaints to the consumer protection ministry.
A spokesman for Hodie Vivere insisted that it had had no contact with Novartis; that it was only concerned with the public health message; and that it was up to doctors to decide which of three drugs to prescribe. It brought a court action against Test Achats, accusing it of impugning its scientific reputation. It lost its case this month, however, when a Brussels judge ruled that the consumer group had been within its rights in criticising the televised campaign.