| About | |
| Contact Us | |
| Articles | |
| Topic Index | |
| Reports | |
| Quotes | |
| On the Web | |
| Links | |
| TW Tracker | |
| Support | |
Times Watch for
July 22, 2003
This
Is Your Paper Of Record On Drugs
Tuesday’s A1 story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Gardiner Harris, “Measure To Ease Imports Of Drugs Is Gaining In House,” is a cheerleading, one-sided discussion of a bill which would expand the importation of drugs from other nations. The intent would be to enable American consumers to take advantage of government-mandated price controls in those countries that artificially suppress the price of drugs. The Times takes only brief, dismissive notice of how the bill could squelch research and development of new drugs, instead posing the problem as a simplistic battle between angry consumers and Republicans allied with greedy drug company lobbyists.
The story opens: “A bill that would make it easier for Americans to import inexpensive prescription medicines from Canada and Europe is gathering support among some Republicans in the House of Representatives, prompting a furious effort by the pharmaceutical industry to defeat the legislation when it comes up for a vote later this week.”
The Times helpfully points out that Republicans are in the pocket of drug makers: “In the past, many Republicans -- who tend to receive considerable financial support from drug makers -- have been inclined to accept the industry's arguments that imported drugs pose a safety risk and that higher prices in the United States are necessary so drug manufacturers can funnel the profits back into research and development. That sentiment appears to be changing. Lawmakers say they now recognize that many Americans are already buying medicines overseas, often through the mail or over the Internet, and that there have been few reports of people being hurt. They say they are also mindful that many voters are fed up with paying more than citizens in nations whose governments control prices.”
As shown, the Times briefly mentions but never takes on the issue of drug company research and development (even the Times use of the term “funnel the profits back” makes the process sound somehow criminal).
Stolberg and Harris again remind us Republicans get drug company donations: “Drug manufacturers are among the biggest contributors to political campaigns; during the 2002 election cycle, the industry gave nearly $27 million to political candidates, three-quarters of it to Republicans. But one industry lobbyist said the manufacturers now worried that their success in the marketplace had become a political liability in Congress. ‘There's this sense on the Hill that the industry is too rich for its own good,’ the lobbyist said. For the industry, the financial stakes in the reimportation fight could hardly be greater. The Gutknecht bill estimates that widespread drug importation could reduce average drug prices in the United States by 35 percent and drug spending by $635 million over 10 years.”
(The article concludes with a supporting quote from the suddenly respectable Rep. Dan Burton (lambasted as a nasty, “prosecutorial wild man” by executive-editor elect Bill Keller). Burton says: "Every woman in America ought to be angry as hell at the pharmaceutical industry, and you can quote me on that.")
A July 21 piece by the American Enterprise Institute’s John Calfee in the Weekly Standard lays out the side of the story the Times ignored. Calfee explains that in essence American drug prices would be set by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, “a creature of the Canadian government. It dictates the maximum price that can be charged for a new drug when it is introduced into Canada.”
In fact, price control systems are a worldwide phenomenon. Calfee claims they “prevent innovative pharmaceutical firms from reaping free-market rewards anywhere but in the United States. That is one reason why the world pharmaceutical industry, which 20 years ago was mostly based in Europe, has largely relocated to the United States. American manufacturers now account for 7 of the top 10 worldwide best-selling medicines, and 15 of the top 20.”
Calfee points out the possible consequences to such legislation: “Either way, price controls would end up suppressing innovation here, just as they have done abroad. It is one thing for the Canadians and Europeans to free-ride on American R&D, but we can't free-ride on ourselves. The system that gave us the drugs the whole world wants would be hobbled just when researchers are finally glimpsing pathways to cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, and other killers.”
Apparently this sort of sober, long-view assessment carries no weight at the Times, which is continuing its slanted drug-industry coverage from the Raines era.
For the rest of the Stolberg and Harris story on drug reimportation, click here.
The
Times Calls Out The Food Police
Two recent stories show the Times inching toward a justification of government regulation over how much food we eat. Tuesday’s Science Times story by Erica Goode opens with her sounding more like a Reverend Goode from the Puritan era: “From giant sodas to supersize burgers to all-you-can-eat buffets, America's approach to food can be summed up by one word: Big. Plates are piled high, and few crumbs are left behind. Today's blueberry muffin could, in an earlier era, have fed a family of four….Now many health experts are hoping that, in the service of combating an epidemic of obesity, the nation might be coaxed into a similar cultural shift in its eating habits.”
Next, Goode absolves us of our sins of gluttony. See, our “epidemic of obesity” is the fault of those big bad food makers: “Health experts and consumer advocates point to the studies of portion size and other environmental influences in arguing that fast-food chains and food manufacturers must bear some of the blame for the country's weight problem.”
Goode’s sources include the alarmist Center for Science in the Public Interest, whose philosophy Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine sums up: “If it tastes good, according to CSPI’s implicit logic, it must be bad for you.”
Goode reports on the trial lawyers targeting fast food: “At least seven such lawsuits have been filed, with varying success, said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. Professor Banzhaf, who led the way in litigation against tobacco companies, is now channeling similar energy into reforming fast food.”
Later, Goode makes a
stunning breakthrough into the bleeding obvious: “Price is a powerful influence.
In a series of studies, researchers at the University of Minnesota have
demonstrated that the relative cost of different products has an even more
potent effect on food choice than nutritional labeling.” (What a shock. If
something costs less, then you buy more of it. Does the Nobel Prize Committee in
Economic Sciences know about this?)
She quotes an NYU professor: "There is a disconnect between people's
understanding of portions and the idea that a larger portion has more calories,"
said Dr. Marion Nestle, chairwoman of the N.Y.U. nutrition and food policy
department and the author of ‘Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences
Nutrition and Health.’”
But Nestle isn’t a disinterested researcher but an anti-big-business activist and author of “Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism.” The editorial description of the book hints at Nestle’s leanings: “She demonstrates how powerful food industries oppose safety regulations, deny accountability, and blame consumers when something goes wrong, and how century-old laws for ensuring food safety no longer protect our food supply.”
The article includes a huge collage of fast food and several charts, accompanied by this text: “In an affluent society, decisions about what and how much to eat are dictated by many factors besides hunger. Bigger, cheaper and more varied meals, heavily advertised and widely available, may induce people to eat more than they need to.” A society where you can eat lots of things for very little money? How awful.
Goode’s story concludes on
this ominous note: “Obviously, people have responsibility for deciding what to
eat and how much, Dr. Rolls said. ‘The problem is,’ she said, ‘they're not very
good at it.’” Sounds like the Times may want the government to start doing it
for us.
A Sunday Money & Business story, “It’s a Fat World, After All,” by Alison
Langley, deals with proposed European plans to fight obesity by targeting food
portion size and health claims made by food makers. Langley also quotes Dr.
Nestle, while putting food companies on the defensive: “Executives say they
believe measures to fight obesity should be voluntary, and they point to
[various food-maker pledges] as proof that the industry can police itself.”
Just like Goode, Langley takes for granted something called an “obesity epidemic” actually exists: “Still, many executives at food companies reject the notion that they are the bad guys who are somehow to blame for the obesity epidemic. They say individuals have to take responsibility for what they eat and how much they exercise.”
Times Watch would add more, but after reading these stories and seeing the pictures, we could really go for a bacon cheeseburger.
For the rest of Erica Goode’s story on fat America, click here.
For the rest of Alison Langley’s story on the fat world, click here.
E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org