Volume 57 Issue 3
FDLI has initiated a policy regarding the Food and Drug Law Journal online: Only the Table of Contents and article abstracts for each issue will be posted to our website. Visitors can obtain a full text version of an entire issue. Your purchase will be processed quickly, and at reasonable rates.
Any questions or concerns regarding this policy should be directed to
Michael Levin-Epstein, FDLI's Editor-in-Chief.
Table of Contents
> Bioterrorism: Defining
a Research Agenda
by Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., Director of the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NAID) at the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD. This article is an updated version
of a speech that was presented at FDLI's Conference on Bioterrorism,
Washington, D.C. (Feb. 20, 2002).
> The Development of Direct-to-Consumer Prescription
Drug Advertising Regulation
by Francis B. Palumbo, Ph.D., J.D., Director, University of Maryland
School of Pharmacy Center on Drugs and Public Policy, Baltimore,
MD
C. Daniel Mullins, Ph.D., Associate Director, University of Maryland
School of Pharmacy Center on Drugs and Public Policy, Baltimore,
MD
> Financial Conflict of Interest in Medical Research:
Overview and Analysis of Federal and State Controls
by Jennifer A. Henderson, J.D., M.P.H., Administrative Director
and Senior Research Associate, Regulatory Affairs Program, Center
for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology, Boston,
MA
John J. Smith, M.D., J.D., Associate Radiologist, Massachusetts
General Hospital; Associate Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical
School; and Director of Regulatory Affairs, Center for Integration
of Medicine and Innovative Technology, Boston, MA
> Negotiating Reality: The Construction of Enforceable
Pharmaceutical Standards
by Richard H. Parrish II, Ph.D., R.Ph., Assistant Professor, Department
of Pharmacy Practice, Bernard J. Dunn School of Pharmacy, Shenandoah
University, Winchester, VA
> Navigating the Hatch-Waxman Act's Safe Harbor
by Phillip B.C. Jones, who earned a Ph.D. in Physiology and Pharmacology
at the University of California, San Diego. Since obtaining his
J.D. in 1992, he has specialized in the protection of intellectual
property covering biotechnology-based inventions.
> Exploring the Frontiers of Law and Science: FDAMA's
Pediatric Studies Incentive
by Christopher-Paul Milne, D.V.M., M.P.H., J.D., Assistant Director
of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University,
Boston, MA
> Pediatric Marketing Exclusivity as Altered by the
Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002
by Karena J. Cooper, May 2003 J.D. candidate, University of Maryland
School of Law, Baltimore, MD
> What's in the Wine? A History of FDA's Role
by Elaine T. Byszewski, who earned her J.D. cum laude from Harvard
Law School, 2002.
> "By Hercules! The More
Common the Wine, the More Wholesome!"
Science and the Adulteration of Food and Other Natural Products
in Ancient Rome
by James F. Bush, Associate at the law firm of Morgan & Finnegan,
LLP, New York, NY
Bioterrorism: Defining a Research Agenda
Author: Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 413-422 (2002)
The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon forever changed our collective thinking regarding the vulnerability of the United States to terrorists. Superimposed on those tragic events were the first recorded cases of anthrax in the United States to result from an intentional human act. These two events mobilized a new effort to bolster what has come to be known as Homeland Security, a multifaceted endeavor that includes, among many other components, defenses against and responses to bioterrorism. Our ability to detect and counter bioterrorism depends to a large degree on the state of biomedical science. This article will discuss the biodefense research agenda of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and provide background into selected medical and public health aspects of bioterrorism.
| Back to top |
The Development of Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising Regulation
Author: Francis B. Palumbo, Ph.D., J.D. & C. Daniel Mullins, Ph.D.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 423-444 (2002)
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising has grown from $12 million in 1989 to over $2 billion in 2001, an almost 200-fold increase. The authors trace the evolution of the laws and regulations that led up to today's DTC advertising. This article examines the interplay between the drug advertising laws administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and those administered by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and discusses the relative roles of the two agencies. Today, the FTC regulates advertising of over-the-counter drugs, while FDA, through its Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, regulates prescription drug advertising, including DTC advertising. The article also addresses the regulation of DTC advertising in other countries, and explores the positions of the various stakeholders in DTC advertising. Finally, the article addresses new legislative and legal efforts in the DTC advertising arena.
| Back to top |
Financial Conflict of Interest in Medical Research:
Overview and Analysis of Federal and State Controls
Author: Jennifer A. Henderson, J.D., M.P.H. & John J. Smith, M.D., J.D.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 445-456 (2002)
Over the past two decades, increasing academia-industry collaboration
has given rise to exciting new opportunities for medical researchers
and the medical technology community. These opportunities have in turn
generated important medical advances and new policy challenges. Financial
conflict of interest is among the key issues resulting from this new
medical research environment. Current federal and state controls form
an overlapping, incomplete, and occasionally conflicting message to
investigators and institutions, creating the potential for considerable
variation in application at the local level. To solidify existing collaborative
paradigms and lay the foundation for future benefits from the academia-industry
partnership, financial conflict of interest must be successfully addressed.
| Back to top |
Negotiating Reality: The Construction of Enforceable Pharmaceutical Standards
Author: Richard H. Parrish II, Ph.D., R.Ph.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 457-474 (2002)
This paper examines the tensions surrounding the construction of enforceable
standards for pharmaceutical
production and use, as negotiated by professional
groups and the federal government from the time of the Pure Food and
Drugs Act of 1906 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938,
two landmark federal food and drug acts. This "negotiated reality"
for enforceable standards centered on the idea of allowable variations
for therapeutic substances. Government could not enforce the descriptive
"rubrics" of professional formulation, despite the elaborate
system of local-state-federal cooperation that Harvey Wiley developed,
and his successors expanded. Industry and practitioners alike exploited
the vagaries of the law by inventing and producing therapeutic substances
not covered under existing standards or statutes. Government scientists
increasingly pressured pharmacy leaders to revise many aspects of the
U.S. Pharmacopeia and the National Formulary, and recommended changes
to standards to make enforcement of the 1906 Act more efficient. Over
time, this negotiation shifted the content of drug standards from organoleptic
qualitative "rubrics" to industrial quantitative monographs.
| Back to top |
Navigating the Hatch-Waxman Act's Safe Harbor
Author: Phillip B.C. Jones, Ph.D., J.D.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 475-490 (2002)
Almost twenty years ago, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition
and Patent Term Restoration Act (the Hatch-Waxman Act), a political
compromise between competing economic interests of the pioneer research-based
pharmaceutical industry and the generic pharmaceutical industry. One
of the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act established a "safe harbor"
from patent infringement liability for certain activities related to
generating information for Food and Drug Administration approval. Over
time, interpretations from district courts, appellate courts, and the
U.S. Supreme Court arguably have transformed the contours of the safe
harbor originally envisioned by Congress. This article steers the expanding
scope and sounds the depth of the current safe harbor.
| Back to top |
Exploring the Frontiers of Law and Science: FDAMA's Pediatric Studies Incentive
Author: Christopher-Paul Milne, D.V.M., M.P.H., J.D.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 491-518 (2002)
The industry, the Food and Dug Administration (FDA), Congress, and
pediatric research advocates have wrestled for many years with the problem
of how to incorporate the evaluation of drugs for pediatric use as a
routine part of new drug development, as well as to generate clinical
trial-based information for already marketed drugs commonly used in
children. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act's (FDAMA's)
pediatric studies provision, which established a voluntary program to
provide incentives to the industry for assessing the pediatric use of
both marketed and new drugs, has become the centerpiece of a uniquely
successful pediatric research initiative. The implementation of FDAMA's
incentive program has engendered a number of scientific and public health
advances, in addition to serving as a model for novel regulatory approaches.
Its success, however, has not been without controversy and challenge,
as detailed by the findings of a survey of industry professionals who
have "lived" the pediatric incentive program experience and
as described in this article.
| Back to top |
Pediatric Marketing Exclusivity as Altered by the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002
Author: Karena J. Cooper, J.D.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 519-544 (2002)
On January 4, 2002, President Bush signed the Best Pharmaceuticals
for Children Act (BPCA) into law. The BPCA is legislation passed to
reauthorize the pediatric exclusivity provisions of Section 111 of the
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). Pediatric
marketing exclusivity is the process by which six-month marketing incentives
are offered to the innovator pharmaceutical industry to conduct studies
involving children. This article sets forth the provisions of the BPCA
and discusses the similarities and differences between it and FDAMA
Section 111. The article highlights the ways in which the process of
pediatric exclusivity has been altered by the BPCA and how the BPCA
strived to fill some of the gaps of FDAMA and attempted to address several
outstanding issues, such as the testing of off-patent drugs, an important
issue that the FDAMA was never intended to address. There is a brief
discussion of the interface between BPCA and FDA regulatory actions,
such as the 1979, 1994 and 1998 Pediatric Rules and FDA's authority
to require pediatric studies. The article concludes with a discussion
of unresolved issues with pediatric exclusivity in general and with
BPCA specifically.
| Back to top |
What's in the Wine? A History of FDA's Role
Author: Elaine T. Byszewski, J.D.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 545-572 (2002)
For those who wonder why wine bottles do not display ingredient labeling and nutrition facts, this article will explain the relevant jurisdictional conflict in which the consumer-friendly Food and Drug Administration lost to the industry-friendly Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In the Brown-Forman case, the judge refused to harmonize the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, although congressional intent was to the contrary, as evident from this article's analysis of legislative history, contemporary whiskey politics, and court and regulatory decisions.
| Back to top |
"By Hercules! The More Common the Wine, the More Wholesome!" Science and the Adulteration of Food and Other Natural Products in Ancient Rome
Author: James F. Bush, J.D.
Issue: 57 Food and Drug Law Journal 573-602 (2002)
Trade in foods, spices, drugs and aromatic perfumes brought natural products to Ancient Rome from the Mediterranean region and beyond. These commodities were often subject to adulteration, and many Romans recognized the economic and health dangers posed by such tampering. The Roman legal and scientific systems had ways of recognizing and addressing such adulterations. Although modern science has discarded many analyses the Romans used to detect adulterations, several ancient techniques remain useful today.
| Back to top |