Fwd: [S-A] Fwd: [Simple_Living] US Seniors Group Attack Pharm. Industry Fronts

[Guest guest]

mistylyn trepke

Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:43:13 -0700 (PDT)

[s-A] Fwd: [simple_Living] US Seniors Group Attack Pharm. Industry

" Fronts "

 

Comments?

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

US seniors group attacks pharmaceutical industry " fronts "

 

Ray Moynihan, Washington

 

 

The giant US seniors group AARP, which has 35 million members aged over 50, has

accused the pharmaceutical industry of funding " front " groups that purport to

represent older Americans but instead push industry friendly political messages.

 

An investigation by the AARP Bulletin has discovered that three key

organisations, the United Seniors Association, the Seniors Coalition,

and the 60 Plus Association, have all received substantial contributions

in recent years from the drug industry.

 

" When the pharmaceutical industry speaks these days, many Americans may not be

able to recognize its voice. That's because the industry often uses `front

groups' that work to advance its agenda under the veil of other interests, " says

the article.

 

AARP is one of the strongest citizens groups in the United States, and

it is currently lobbying hard for a national pharmaceutical scheme to

help older people to meet their drug costs. Proposals for a new scheme

have split the US congress, with Democrats favouring a government-run

approach, and the Republicans supporting a more privatised market based plan,

also being promoted by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

The AARP article gave detailed figures of drug company funding for the

three seniors groups, and cited examples of pro-industry campaigning,

including multimillion dollar television advertisements in the closing

weeks of the congressional elections in November 2002. The 60 Plus

Association is accused of being involved with " astro-turfing " ---

allegedly helping to create a false grass roots campaign to defeat proposed

state laws on prescription drugs.

 

The AARP's policy director, John Rother, said his organisation was now

considering calling for new laws mandating disclosure of sponsors' names in any

political advertising. He told the BMJ that apart from Pfizer, which mounted a

campaign in its own name before the 2002 elections, " the rest of the industry

hid behind this device of using phoney seniors' organisations. "

 

A spokesperson for Pfizer said that its campaign was designed to improve

understanding of the industry's involvement in research and generate support for

a prescription drug scheme.

 

Jeff Trewhitt, spokesman for the Washington based lobby group, the

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, refused to respond to the

specific allegations that industry was hiding behind front

groups, saying that industry did not discuss its tactics: " I don't see a

problem here. "

 

The 60 Plus Association's president, Jim Martin, rejected the

accusations about front groups, telling the BMJ that his 10 year old

group started taking money from drug companies only two years ago. He

said his association had 225000 donors but that to protect privacy it

had a policy of not revealing names.

 

Footnotes

 

The article, " Front Groups: Drug industry Pulls Strings From Afar, " is

available at www.aarp.org/bulletin/

 

(Source: British Medical Journal, 2003; 326: 351).

 

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7385/351?maxtoshow=

& RESULTFORMAT= & searchid=1055150059350_1778 & stored_search= & FIRSTINDEX=0 & v

olume=326%3A & firstpage=351 & resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10 & journalcode=bmj>

& HITS=10 & hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT= & searchid=1055150059350_1778 & stored_search

= & FIRSTINDEX=0 & volume=326%3A & firstpage=351 & resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10 & journ

alcode=bmj