UK rules on medicine advertising
As the rules stood in 2007, advertising a medicine in the United Kingdom was governed by statutory controls and by industry and media codes applying together, and what an advertisement could say and had to carry depended on its product, its audience, its medium and its territory.
The law, the codes and who enforced them
The statutory layer
Advertising a medicine was permitted but highly regulated: beyond the rules on all advertising, additional legislation was in place so that medicine advertising was responsible and stated a product's benefits and risks in a balanced way. Medicine advertising combined statutory requirements with self-regulatory codes, and the controls that applied depended on the medium, such as print or television and radio, and on whether the advertisement was directed at health professionals or the public. Knowing the legislation was essential, and the codes of practice gave a clear working approach to it: they interpreted the law, tended to be more rigorous and went beyond it.
Two types of legislation applied: legislation directly applicable to medicinal products, and legislation affecting the advertising of medicines. The advertising of all medicines was regulated by both European and UK legislation; the European legislation was Title VIII of Directive 2001/83/EC, implemented in the UK by the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994 and the Medicines (Monitoring of Advertising) Regulations 1994. European law permitted medicine advertising to be self-regulated.
Many products sat on the borderline between medicines and food supplements, cosmetics or medical devices. Homeopathic medicines were not classed as true medicinal products but had special advertising provisions, and traditional herbal medicinal products had been classified as medicines in the UK, and so subject to medicines advertising legislation, since October 2005. Under the medicines legislation, most products were "relevant medicinal products", which claim to or actually do treat or prevent disease in humans or animals; homeopathic medicines, covered by Product Licences of Right, and unlicensed herbal medicines fell outside that definition.
The Medicines Act 1968 controlled all matters relating to medicinal products and came into effect on 1 September 1971; its Part VI promotion provisions had largely been superseded by later legislation. Product Licences of Right were covered by the Medicines (Advertising of Medicinal Products) (No 2) Regulations 1975, SI 1326: professional advertising had to agree with the data sheet and state that the data sheet would be sent on request to any doctor or dentist. The Medicines (Labelling and Advertising to the Public) Regulations 1978, SI 41, also applied to these licences, having been amended to stop applying to relevant medicinal products. The Cancer Act 1939 prohibited certain cancer advertisements, separately from the restrictions on medicines used to treat cancer. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 applied to advertising in general, administered by the Department of Trade and Industry. Because so much non-prescription advertising took place on television, separate legislation governed broadcasting: the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 and the Communications Act 2003, administered by the Office of Communications (Ofcom).
The following statutory instruments controlled the promotion and advertising of medicinal products.
- SI 1988/915 implemented Directive 84/450/EEC, covering misleading and comparative advertising. The Director-General of Fair Trading reviewed non-broadcast complaints not already adequately considered by local trading standards or professional self-regulators; the Department of Trade and Industry administered it.
- SI 1994/1932, the Advertising Regulations, implemented Title VIII of Directive 2001/83/EC, previously Directive 92/28/EC, for public and professional medicine advertising, including homeopathic medicines. Breaches were criminal offences with specified penalties.
- SI 1994/1933, the Monitoring Regulations, implemented Articles 97, part of 98, and 99, providing administrative or civil procedures for advertisements inconsistent with the Advertising Regulations.
- SI 1994/3144 implemented European directives on human medicines; Schedule 7 amended aspects of SI 1994/1932.
- SI 1996/1552 amended SI 1994/1932 to permit advertising for neural-tube-defect prevention, strains and sprains, and pain or stiffness from rheumatic or non-serious arthritic conditions.
- SI 1999/267 amended the Advertising and Monitoring Regulations, introducing statutory decisions on alleged breaches, written representations to Health Ministers before decisions and publication of corrective statements.
- SI 1999/784 amended SI 1994/1933 and SI 1999/267 and clarified the maximum penalty on summary conviction.
- SI 2003/3093 amended the Monitoring Regulations for Ofcom's assumption of functions from the Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority and Welsh Authority for S4C.
- SI 2004/1480 removed prohibitions on public advertising for certain diseases. Bans for chronic insomnia, diabetes and other metabolic diseases, malignant diseases, serious infectious diseases and sexually transmitted diseases remained until October 2005.
- SI 2004/1975 delegated some Ofcom functions, including medicine advertising on television and radio, to self-regulatory bodies.
The regulators and code bodies
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had a statutory role to protect the public by promoting the safe use of medicines and ensuring that advertising met the legal requirements, as well as ensuring that medicinal products were of acceptable quality, safety and efficacy. The Advertising Regulations and the Monitoring Regulations were its statutory mandate. Its statutory role supported and underpinned the self-regulation operated by the prescription and non-prescription medicine industries. In 1999 it introduced its Blue Guide, later updated, to help with interpreting, complying with and understanding the regulations. Its four advertising tasks were pre-vetting in specified circumstances, monitoring published advertisements, handling complaints and applying sanctions.
The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) was established by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) in 1993 and operated the prescription-medicine code independently of the association. The code covered promotion to health professionals and administrative staff and was drawn up in consultation with the British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and MHRA. ABPI members were to abide by it in letter and spirit, and virtually all UK pharmaceutical companies, including non-members, had accepted it. The ABPI code regulated the promotion of medicines to UK health professionals and the information supplied with prescription-only medicines; it was the industry's fundamental reference, went beyond the law and was far more comprehensive than the legislative requirements. The ABPI, founded in 1930, represented more than 80 companies researching, developing, manufacturing and supplying more than 80% of NHS-prescribed medicines. Its purpose was to assure consumers of the best available medicines, safeguard patients and promote health through effective medicine use, with responsible, ethical and professional promotion.
A review of the code, effective from 1 January 2006, aimed to raise awareness of patient safety by reminding prescribers on all promotions to report adverse events, further restrict the amount of advertising in journals and sent to customers, suspend circulation of material whose information was under appeal and report more serious cases in the press. The code incorporated the principles set out in the IFPMA marketing code, EFPIA promotion code, Directive 92/28/EEC consolidated as Articles 86–100 of Directive 2001/83/EC, and WHO ethical criteria. A complaint or a breach of the code was a serious matter. Naming and shaming was the ABPI's most powerful sanction and expulsion from the association its ultimate one; expulsion had never happened, but many questioned whether this was a sufficient sanction for breaching the code.
The Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB) was the trade association for over-the-counter (OTC) medicine and food-supplement manufacturers, and its codes were the primary controls on advertising both OTC medicines and food supplements. Its codes governed OTC advertising to both the public and those qualified to prescribe, and were drawn up in consultation with the MHRA, Ofcom, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP), the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) and the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC). The PAGB codes reflected the law and went beyond it to maintain high standards and ensure responsible promotion of self-medication products, aiming to encourage and educate the public and professionals in the safe, effective use of medicines. In the dental sector, the British Dental Trade Association, a group of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and suppliers to the dental profession, provided a code of practice for its members.
Ofcom was the independent statutory regulator and competition authority for television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications. It was ultimately responsible in law for broadcast advertising and had procedures to monitor whether self-regulation protected consumers' interests. Its broadcasting code, under the 2003 Communications Act and 1996 Broadcasting Act, came into force on 25 July 2005, replacing the previous broadcasting regulators' codes on taste, decency, fairness and privacy, those of the Independent Television Commission for commercial television, the Radio Authority for commercial radio and the Broadcasting Standards Commission; it covered standards in programmes, sponsorship, fairness and privacy, and its main objective was to protect children and ensure that adults had the information they needed to make informed choices. The ASA was the independent body set up by the advertising industry to maintain and uphold the advertising codes, protecting consumers and creating a level playing field for advertisers, and it was the point of contact for complaints about the content of advertisements. From November 2004, Ofcom contracted day-to-day broadcast-advertising regulation to the ASA, which had regulated non-broadcast advertising for 40 years. Within the ASA, the Advertising Standards Authority (Broadcast), ASA(B), handled broadcast complaints, the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) set and revised standards and the Broadcast Advertising Standards Board of Finance (BASBOF) funded the system. The inherited television and radio codes required consultation and Ofcom approval for changes. CAP's broadcast division was responsible for the television and radio advertising codes, and its non-broadcast division for the codes for non-broadcast advertisements, sales promotions and direct marketing.
Pre-vetting and internal certification
The MHRA pre-vetted advertisements for newly licensed medicines, for products reclassified, such as from prescription-only to pharmacy medicine, and where previous advertising had breached the regulations. Pre-vetting all new active substances was in line with the recommendations of the Health Select Committee's 2005 report The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry; under earlier arrangements the MHRA had vetted advertisements for new medicines only on the basis of a risk assessment. Most companies did not have to submit advertisements before publication, those asked to submit were generally happy to do so, and newly approved products, switches of legal status and previous sanctions were the common triggers. One account gives a normal vetting period of 3–6 months, potentially longer where problems arose. Another gives a period of up to six months, usually for one product rather than the company's entire portfolio.
MHRA submissions were to identify public or professional audience, provide claim references and have completed internal quality and compliance checks. Normally five working days were allowed for assessment; where substantial data were submitted and a delay was unavoidable, the MHRA gave an estimate of the time needed. The company might be asked for the advertisement's form, audience, intended issue date and duration.
Several regulatory bodies required advertisements to be vetted against their codes, and material to be broadcast also had to be submitted to the appropriate television or radio clearance centre.
PAGB pre-vetting and approval before issue applied to consumer material, not professional advertising. Its consumer approval stamp did not remove the company's responsibility to meet legal requirements. Professional advertising was not pre-vetted: the PAGB operated a post-event complaints procedure, with an advisory service available, and its code required a process to ensure compliance and a nominated senior signatory responsible for ensuring that the company's advertising followed the code in letter and spirit.
Most pharmaceutical companies had copy-approval working practices, if not standard operating procedures, to make their campaigns comply with ABPI standards. The ABPI code required two senior signatories, such as a CEO or managing director, to be nominated to certify final work and accept responsibility; one had to be a registered medical practitioner, or dentist for dental-only products. A practising UK-registered pharmacist under a registered medical practitioner's direction could certify specified material.
Audiences and claims
What counted as an advertisement and who could receive it
Advertising was defined by its intention to promote prescription, supply or sale through health professionals or encourage public use, usually with a stated or implied product claim. It included spoken and written words, journal and newspaper articles, posters, notices, photographs, film, broadcasts, video, electronic transmissions and internet material. Most if not all advertising media were subject to legislation, and section 3.2.1 of the PAGB consumer code gave further information where there was uncertainty. Disease-awareness campaigns, correspondence, announcements, reference material, labels and leaflets, price lists and trade catalogues were excluded from advertising only when they carried no product claims. UK disease-awareness campaigns could create public interest only with no drug mentioned or claims made; where products were mentioned, all available therapies had to be presented fairly and in balance, and the sponsoring company had to be clear.
The legal requirements applied to licensed prescription, OTC, general-sale, generic, branded and homeopathic products. The two basic principles governing medicine advertising in the UK and Europe were that only correctly licensed medicines could make claims and prescription-only medicines could not be advertised directly to the public, so prescription promotion belonged in professional journals and conferences rather than public newspapers, mainstream magazines or television.
The MHRA could advise whether a product needed licensing. Factual information about an unlicensed product could reach key budget decision makers and public advisory bodies only where it was expected to affect future planning significantly. In exceptional circumstances, abridged advertising of a product without a marketing authorisation was allowed: a company could advise hospital budget holders or health authorities of a future launch that could have a major impact on their expenditure, and such material was unlikely to be addressed to a prescriber because it served financial administration alone.
Only pharmacy medicines available without prescription (P) and general-sale-list (GSL) products could be advertised to the public, with some exceptions: government vaccine campaigns were permitted, but products claiming to treat cancer, some psychotropic products and products used in abortion could not be advertised to the public. A medicine brand could be linked to a sponsorship campaign as long as it was classified for over-the-counter sale.
Professional audiences included prescribers, pharmacy staff, suppliers under patient group directions and general-sale suppliers.
Seven minimum requirements applied to professional advertisements and to full prescription advertisements.
- Product licence: only fully licensed medicines could be advertised.
- Authorised product information: statements had to comply with the particulars in the Summary of Product Characteristics, which they need not repeat word for word but should never contradict; only the therapeutic indications listed there could be promoted, and not use by a patient group it did not indicate.
- Balance: an advertisement had to encourage rational use by presenting the product objectively without exaggerating its properties, and so should refer to any significant limitations, not unduly minimise side effects and not be inconsistent with the Summary of Product Characteristics.
- Accuracy: claims and data should be accurate, up to date and verifiable, statements the Summary of Product Characteristics could not support should be substantiated, and reference citations should be provided and presented faithfully and in balance, avoiding cherry-picking and obscure data.
- Completeness: an advertisement should be complete enough for recipients to form their own opinion of the product's therapeutic value, and teaser advertising that drew attention to something to come without giving any actual information was not acceptable.
- Not misleading: no advertisement should mislead in words or overall impression, including its images.
- Industry reputation: an advertisement should not bring the industry into disrepute.
OTC advertisements directed at the public and at those qualified to prescribe had to meet these minimum requirements as well as additional prerequisites. The primary consideration in preparing an OTC advertisement was that its overall impression, whether gained by careful study, brief overview or partial reading, had to be carefully constructed. The most catch-all provision of the legislation was that an advertisement must not mislead: potential benefits and the minimisation of possible risks could not be presented in a way that confused or misled.
What public OTC advertisements could say
A public advertisement required the product name, indication and correct-use information, the active ingredient where there was only one, and an invitation to read the label or leaflet. It should also meet the following conditions.
- Be clearly distinguishable from editorial material and use plain, understandable language without confusion or misleading wording.
- Avoid suggesting that not using the medicine would damage health, creating unjustified anxiety or encouraging unnecessary use.
- Never discourage medical advice or offer diagnosis, and avoid details or testimonials leading to incorrect self-diagnosis.
- Avoid treating a licence as endorsement, and mention only establishments that genuinely exist.
- Offer no money-back guarantee, samples or voucher redemptions.
- Imply no recommendation or use by a particular health professional or scientist, and use no celebrity recommendation encouraging use directly or indirectly.
- Use only genuine testimonials less than three years old that comply with the whole code.
- Avoid directing the advertisement principally or exclusively at children or showing them using, or within reach of, medicines without adult supervision.
Claims were restricted as follows.
- Make no guarantee of results or misleading claim about the medicine's nature or indication; avoid improper, alarming or misleading claims about recovery or physical changes shown in visuals.
- Support claims comprehensively, especially speed of action, absorption, dissolution and other pharmacokinetic claims.
- Use “new” only for one year after the product became available to purchase, and base uniqueness on significant differences from anything else marketed.
- Suggest neither an unknown active ingredient nor that the product is anything other than a medicine.
- Use “herbal” only where all active ingredients are plants or plant extracts. Use “natural” for the whole product only where all components occur naturally, or restrict the term to its naturally occurring elements.
- Claim neither safety nor efficacy from natural origin, enhancement of normal good health, nor freedom from side effects. Qualify “safe”.
- Suggest no present or past prescription availability of the product; evidence could support a claim that a health professional had prescribed its ingredient, formulation or preparation.
Most homeopathic medicines were unlicensed, so only those that had undergone full licensing could make claims, and unlicensed ones could state only what was on the label. The same list of claim rules also says, without that distinction, that advertisements for homeopathic products could claim no action or health-improving effect and could list only what was on the product label.
Comparisons had to be fair, balanced and verifiable; they could not unjustly discredit another product or treatment, name competing brands without permission or rest on the absence of an ingredient found in a competitor product. Hanging comparisons should not be used: a comparison had to be qualified, as in “product y is better than product x in the treatment of hypertension” rather than only “better”. A comparison could not suggest efficacy better than or equivalent to another identifiable product, but top parity was allowed on direct comparative data until another product proved superior.
What professional OTC advertisements could say
The PAGB Professional Code covered advertising to persons qualified to prescribe or supply medicines to influence sales or public recommendations. Its scope included print, electronic, audio and audiovisual material, gifts, hospitality or sponsorship at meetings, samples and representatives' activities. The items it covered were broad, but it excluded material naming no medicine, a named product making only genuine pack-shot claims, and named-product notices limited to new labelling, adverse events or price.
A professional OTC advertisement had to meet the seven minimum requirements and the following conditions.
- Qualify “safe”, make side-effect information reflect the evidence and claim no freedom from side effects.
- Make all claims fair and verifiable, and support claims about speed of action and the like in line with the Summary of Product Characteristics.
- Give a true and fair view in tables, artwork and photographs, and reproduce those taken from other publications accurately.
- Use “new” only for the first year after launch, and base uniqueness on significant differences from anything already on the market.
- Make no reference to the MHRA or other regulators, fully reference the studies used to make claims and keep comparisons within the code.
- Use only testimonials that are the author's genuine views and comply with all aspects of the code.
- Call a product “herbal” only if all active ingredients are plants or plant extracts, and “natural” only if all its components occur naturally, or use the word only for the naturally occurring elements. Suggest no safety or efficacy from the product being natural.
What prescription advertisements could say and reproduce
A prescription-only medicine advertisement should reflect accurate, up-to-date and verifiable claims and comparisons, substantiate any statement the Summary of Product Characteristics could not support, present reference citations faithfully and in balance, avoiding cherry-picking and obscure data, and be complete enough for recipients to form their own opinion of the product's therapeutic value. Tables and graphs had to be true, fair, balanced, faithfully reproduced and fully referenced. “Safe” required qualification and could not imply freedom from side effects or dependence. Superlatives were limited to facts, special merits required substantiation and “new” applied to a product or indication for up to twelve months after availability. Comparisons had to be fair, balanced, verifiable and non-disparaging.
References to a regulatory agency were barred unless required by the product licence, reproduced official documents required written permission from the appropriate body, and postcard, envelope or mailing content that could amount to public advertising was barred. Telephone, text and email required recipients' prior permission. Company-sponsored medicine material had to make sponsorship prominent, and advertising had to be recognisable and separate from editorial content. Quotations had to preserve the author's meaning and current views, be referenced and faithfully reproduced, and be modified only where needed for code compliance; quotations from public broadcasts or conferences required speaker permission. The detailed PMCPA requirements should be consulted and fully understood before an advertisement is written.
Required information and formats
What professional OTC material had to carry
All advertising to professionals had to carry certain essential information, which depended on its size and on whether it was bound in a dated publication, a loose insert or a detail aid. Audiovisual and interactive material could include it or provide a separate document; sound-only material needed a document. Promotional aids carrying only product and company names were exempt. Wherever required, the information had to be prominent and clearly legible.
Items larger than A5, other than promotional aids or dummy packs, had to carry the following.
- Put active ingredients immediately beside the most prominent product name, occupying the same space as the name or using a font with a lower-case “a” at least 2 mm high, about 10 points for most fonts.
- Give the product licence number; the licence holder's name and address or those of the business responsible for supply; P or GSL supply classification; and indications.
- Give concise side effects, precautions and contraindications for those indications; dosage and dosage frequency, with method of use only where not obvious; and any marketing-authorisation advertising warning.
- Give cost excluding VAT for a specified pack, quantity or recommended daily dose, making clear whether it was a trade or retail price; and the date the essential information was prepared or revised.
Smaller items bound in a publication required the same ingredient position and space or 2 mm “a” condition, P or GSL classification, indications, authorisation-required warnings, and “further information is available from” followed by the licence holder's name and address or the responsible supply business's details.
Loose inserts and detail aids had to meet the information requirements for their page size, be accurate, current and verifiable, be complete enough for recipients to assess therapeutic value, and state preparation or revision date.
When a prescription advertisement could be abbreviated
As for OTC medicines, a prescription advertisement's minimum requirements depended on its size: it was abbreviated, smaller than A5 and subject to further provisions, or full, larger than A5. An abbreviated advertisement, which required less detail than a full one, had to be no larger than A5 and could appear only in a professional publication. A loose insert could not be an abbreviated advertisement regardless of size, and abbreviated advertisements were not permitted in audiovisual, interactive or internet material, including internet journals.
What a full prescription advertisement had to carry
Clear and legible prescribing information, with the lower-case “x” at least 1 mm high and no more than 100 characters per line including spaces, was required in all promotions except abbreviated advertisements and promotional aids featuring only product name or company name.
The prescribing information required medicine name, active ingredients, indications, dosage and method and route where necessary; common and serious adverse events, precautions and contraindications from the Summary of Product Characteristics, with advice to consult it for the complete information; authorisation-required advertising warnings; POM classification; licence-holder or supply-business name and address; and preparation or revision date. Cost excluding VAT for a specified pack, quantity or recommended daily dose was required except in journals circulated outside the UK and in audiovisual or associated material.
The remaining full-format conditions were as follows.
- Put the product name and active ingredients immediately beside the most prominent product name, with ingredients occupying the same space or using a font with a lower-case “x” at least 2 mm high.
- Where journal prescribing information was overleaf, say so at the advertisement's beginning or end on the outer edge, with “x” at least 2 mm high. Two advertisement pages not facing each other had to avoid misleading when read separately.
- Use only a single sheet printed on both sides for a loose journal insert, no larger than the journal pages. Advertise a product on no more than two pages per issue. For a printed promotion longer than four pages, clearly locate the prescribing information.
- Include prescribing information within audiovisual or interactive material or as a separate document available to everyone shown or sent it; provide a document for sound-only material.
- Give the item's preparation or revision date unless it was part of a dated professional publication.
- Prominently locate prescribing information for internet or electronic-journal promotion, with a direct link in an electronic journal.
- On all promotional material except promotional aids, prominently include adverse-event-reporting information for the Yellow Card website or equivalent wording and the company name, telephone number and department for reports to the company, in type larger than the prescribing information.
What an abbreviated prescription advertisement had to carry
An abbreviated advertisement required product name, active ingredients, indication, advice to consult the Summary of Product Characteristics before prescribing, POM classification, authorisation-required warnings, licence-holder or responsible supply-business name and address, and a statement that further information was available on request from the licence holder or the Summary of Product Characteristics. It required a statement aligned with that summary explaining why the product was recommended for the indications. Ingredients had to stand immediately beside the most prominent product name in the same space or with lower-case “x” at least 2 mm high. Adverse-event reporting information for the Yellow Card website or equivalent and the company had to be prominent.
Distribution and broadcast
Which countries' requirements applied
Advertising had to comply with the law wherever broadcast, displayed or used. An advertisement produced to UK standards was not difficult to use within Europe, because UK legislation rested on European directives, but the internet needed considering, since anything on it could be viewed worldwide.
Under the PMCPA's position on international journals, which differed from the MHRA Blue Guide's, a journal produced in the UK, even if not distributed there, was subject to UK legislation if circulated to a UK audience, and stating that the advertisement concerned a UK licence was worth considering. UK-produced journals solely for overseas distribution followed local requirements and/or the IFPMA Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices.
UK companies preparing material for another country had to satisfy both countries' requirements, applying the stricter regulation where codes left uncertainty. An overseas-licensed indication not licensed in the UK could be promoted at a UK meeting only if the meeting was truly international with a significant international audience, the material was relevant and proportionate to its purpose, and the UK-unlicensed status was clear and prominent.
How websites separated their audiences
Material on UK websites or aimed at UK audiences was subject to UK advertising law. Public prescription promotion was prohibited, while sites directed by nature and content at health professionals could carry it. Mixed public and professional sites should separate and clearly identify their audiences. UK users following links to other countries' sites should be able to tell that they were accessing material intended for those countries. UK sites should carry the minimum basic product information, including prescribing information and the Summary of Product Characteristics; the code suggested identifying the intended audience on each page. Online journals expressly for those qualified to prescribe or supply, and their advertising, were to comply with the code, and each prescription-advertisement page should be clearly labelled as intended for health professionals.
Which clearance route applied
Television and radio advertising standards encompassed the medicines advertising laws and overlapped much with the PAGB code, mainly so that companies outside PAGB membership also complied with the law; both codes reflected the same law, with only a few subtle differences. Ofcom could require removal or amendment and restrict broadcast timing, particularly around children.
BACC assessed television advertisements at script stage before production and as finished material before transmission, using the Television Advertising Standards Code. One account says most broadcasters would not transmit without a BACC clearance certificate. Another says none would. Medicine advertisements went to a medical panel for advice, and PAGB members also submitted to PAGB.
Radio advertisements had to be vetted before broadcast by the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC), which was authorised by Ofcom, and PAGB members submitted them to both PAGB and RACC.
What television advertisements could contain
A television advertisement for a medicine had to meet the following additional conditions.
- Direct viewers to seek advice on medicines or health matters only from health professionals regulated by statutory or recognised professional bodies, whose list was available from ASA and BCAP. Offer no remote treatment or diagnosis by phone, post, internet, email or fax.
- Use “tonic” only where the product licence authorised it. Advertise no treatment for alcohol or substance misuse or dependence except smoking-cessation aids; make clear that such a product was no more than an aid and that willpower was crucial, and imply no safer smoking while the habit was being reduced.
- In advertisements for homeopathic products, make no claims and mention no ailment. Use “Always read the label” or “Always read the leaflet”.
- Suggest no identity as food, cosmetics or another consumer product, and offer no charitable donation.
- Claim no freedom from side effects, while allowing likely absence of a named effect, such as being unlikely to cause weight gain.
- Advertise no medicine to anyone under sixteen. Claim no relief of tension, although relief of the recognised condition “tension headache” was permitted.
What radio advertisements could contain
A radio advertisement for a medicine had to meet the following conditions.
- Say “Always read the label” or “Always read the leaflet”. Offer no remote treatment or diagnosis by phone, post, internet, email or fax, although an ASA/BCAP-recognised health-professional service could provide remote advice and information, including brochures and leaflets.
- Use no recommendations or testimonials from celebrities, medical charities, patient groups or medical professionals. Use “help” or “relieve” without implying cure, and “tonic” only if authorised by the product licence.
- Claim no freedom from side effects, while allowing likely absence of a named effect, with unlikely weight gain as the example.
- Target nobody under sixteen. Claim no relief of tension, with the same recognised tension-headache exception.
- Offer no sales promotions, offers or samples, and use no jingles to promote medicines.