Prohibition Promotion

Farmed animals tend to be subjected to compounds that can be classified more easily as drugs. In some cases, animals may encounter compounds in nature that have considerable limitations in inclusion in the diets of farmed animals. An example is the inclusion of zearalenone (Figure 1) and its derivatives in animal diets these have anabolic and oestrogenic properties " and are permitted to be used in some areas of the world but are prohibited from use in others, such as European Union countries. Thus this compound and its reduced isomers (zearalenols, zeranols) improve growth rates in animals but can cause reproductive problems, especially in pigs. Ralgro, which is a commercially prepared derivative of zearalenone, is used as an ear implant in beef cattle as a growth promoter in... 

In addition to their tremendous value as arehives of information about the past state of the Earth s environment, speleothems have an aesthetie value that satisfies the euriosity of all eave visitors. For this reason, we promote eonservation guidelines that have been set in plaee to preserve the quahty of cave environments. In many regions of the world, collection of speleothems is prohibited by legislation. Even if permission is obtained, the utmost effort should be made to minimize the impact of sampling. 

The use of antibiotics, copper diet supplements and probiotics for growth promotion is prohibited. 

In the European Community (EC), the use of hormonal substances for the promotion of animal growth is prohibited (Directive 96/22/EC). The ban was applied without discrimination internally and to imports from third countries as from January 1,1989. As a result, countries wishing to export bovine meat and meat products to the EC were required either to have an equivalent legislation or to follow a hormone-free cattle program [14]. 

In 1988, the European Commission (EC) prohibited the use of hormones for growth promotion in animals to be used for food production. The ban also applied to imported of meat products. The result was a considerable amount of litigation, and trade disputes between North America and the European Union nations. The disputes led to tariff sanctions against the European Union nations. In 1998, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body essentially condemned the EC for harming meat products from animals treated... 

In its report ( 3) issued in 1972, the Task Force acknowledged the potential human and animal health hazard of drug resistant bacteria and made a number of recommendations. In addition to basic research to better understand the nature of the problem, the Task Force recommended that restrictions be placed on the use of antibacterial agents in feeds which fail to meet guidelines established by the Task Force in regard to safety and/or efficacy. Agents that do not meet these standards would be prohibited from growth promotion and any subtherapeutic use in animals but could continue to be used at therapeutic levels for short-term treatment on the order of licensed veterinarians. 

Where a company suspects that the product is to be used in a way that is not safe for patients, its duty to those patients may involve warning the doctor that it considers the proposed use to be hazardous and, if necessary, refusing or terminating supply. While there is no general obligation to provide product information with unlicensed medicines (and, as noted above, the use of promotional material is prohibited), from a product liability standpoint, the provision of basic safety information about the product is a sensible precaution. 

The legitimate exchange of medical and scientific information during the development of a medicine is not prohibited provided that any such information or activity does not constitute promotion which is prohibited under this or any other clause. 

The promotion of indications not covered by the marketing authorization for a medicine is prohibited by this clause. 

Any quotation chosen by a company for use in promotional material must comply with the requirements of the Code itself. For example, to quote from a paper which stated that a certain medicine was safe and effective would not be acceptable even if it was an accurate reflection of the meaning of the author of the paper, as it is prohibited under Clause 7.9 of the Code to state without qualification in promotional material that a medicine is safe. 

Care should be taken in quoting from any study or the like to ensure that it does not mislead as to overall significance. (See Clause 7.1 which prohibits misleading information, claims etc in promotional material.) Attention is drawn to the provisions of Clause 7.6 which requires that when promotional material refers to published studies clear references must be given to where they can be found. 

Attention is drawn to the provisions of Clause 9.9 which prohibit the use of the telephone, text message, email, telemessages and facsimile for promotional purposes, except with the prior permission of the recipient. 

Attention is drawn to the requirements of Clauses 18 and 19 which prohibit the provision of any financial inducement for the purposes of sales promotion and require that any hospitality provided is secondary to the purpose of a meeting, is not out of proportion to the occasion and does not extend beyond members of the health professions or appropriate administrative staff. 

Medicines Regulation, it did not even consider the possibility of consumer-directed promotions, but only envisaged rather technical information promotions to health care providers and payers. Thus, since it seemed to be impossible, DTCA was not explicitly prohibited in New Zealand. 

The appellants argued that the weapons laws violated both the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution. They noted that in the Aymette case the court ruled that the knife could be banned because it was not a weapon of war that would be protected by the constitution s interest in promoting the common defense. A pistol, they argued, was a weapon that could be used in war, and the state could not make a regulation that amounted to a prohibition of such a weapon. 

This decision continues in the tradition of the keeping of arms being an individual right, but one exercised in the context of promoting a collective defense (the well-trained militia). The state s police power can prohibit weapons that are not suitable or customary for this purpose. The keeping of military weapons cannot be banned, but the manner of bearing them can be regulated. 

---