In response to the ongoing public outcry for protection from imported drugs and other products, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is finally taking some action. This week, the FDA is opening three offices in China. (11/17/08, Washington Post, “FDA to open China Offices After Product Scares.”) The first office will be opened in Beijing on Wednesday, followed by one in Guangzhou and another in Shanghai. According to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Mike Leavitt,13 employees will be assigned to work in the FDA offices in China, but he has not said what their role will be.

While this is certainly a good first step, it is only a baby-step. There are thousands of foreign companies who ship drugs into the United States, let alone other consumer products. Thus, additional presence and regulation is needed. Last year the FDA reported that it only had resources to inspect foreign pharmaceutical companies every 13 years. (U.S. Government Accountability Office, Drug Safety: Preliminary Findings Suggest Weakness in FDA’s Program for Inspecting Foreign Drug Manufacturer. Statement of Marcia Crosse, Director of Health Care, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, November 1, 2007.) It is unclear how much of an impact that three offices with only 13 employees, who must deal with multiple consumer products, (not just pharmaceuticals), will have on the undisputed inability of the FDA to ensure product safety of foreign products.

As often discussed on this blog, this inability to protect the American public underscores why preemption of lawsuits is wrong. Drug and medical device companies argue that Americans injured by defective drugs or medical devices should be barred from bringing suit, because the FDA can adequately protect the American public. The heparin disaster has made it clear that this assumption is inherently flawed.

Indeed, as also reported in this week's news, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report showing "that historically the Food and Drug Administration has not sought to preempt state law claims, and that the agency 'viewed lawsuits brought by persons injured by a drug as a valuable complement to the agency's regulatory efforts.'" (11/17/08 Lawyers USA, "Report: FDA Staff Objected to Preemption Policies.") However, during the Bush administration the FDA made a dramatic reversal, adding preemption language to drug regulations. This language has now become "a cornerstone of drug industry preemption arguments."

According to the report, "key career officials" objected to the regulatory changes. The officials "repeatedly warned that the central factual justifications for the agency's new positions were false."

The American Association for Justice ("AAJ") "blasted the FDA over the report, noting that the findings were similar to those in an AAJ report released earlier this month." Geri Voss, Director of Regulatory Affairs at AAJ, said, "In a gift to big negligent corporations, the Bush Administration overrode the advice of career professionals, ignored the agency's history of respect for litigation and put consumer safety on the backburner." For a full copy of “Get Out of Jail Free: A Historical Perspective of How the Bush Administration Helps Corporations Escape Accountability” go to: www.justice.org/getoutofjailfree.

Labels: AAJ, Baxter, Baxter Heparin, China, FDA, Heparin, heparin attorney, Heparin Class Action, heparin lawsuit, heparin lawyer, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, imported drugs