Proposed Changes to Condom Labeling - Make a Comment to the FDA (WordFilter says TMI)

[ophie]

A close college friend of mine now works at an Infectious Disease Clinic. She forwarded me the following comments this morning.

So... I may be the only weird one that actually feels strongly about this (it couldn't be because of what I do/where I work, could it?!), but the new FDA proposal for what to put on condom packages re: HIV/STD prevention sucks. http://www.thebody.com/kaiser/2005/nov11_0...ling.html?m124o

They want to say that condoms "greatly reduce, but do not eliminate" risk of HIV transmission and that they do not really reduce the risk of HPV or herpes transmission since they can be acquired via skin-to-skin contact. How does this translate to a 16-year old? "Wow, condoms don't really prevent HIV/STDs and they get in the way anyway... what's the point in using them?"

They also have a comment on Nonoxynol 9 which is a spermicidal lubricant that causes substantial irritation/inflammation in the v*****l walls. In HIV prevention terms this is a nightmare-inflammation is the result of increased blood flow and t-cells rushing to the area. Pair that with some tiny abrasions and you have greatly increased risk of HIV transmission.

What can we do? Well, from the link above you can get to a comment form that will officially go on the record to the FDA during the 90-day public comment window period. While I'm all for educating the public about the products they're using, the proposed language will most certainly dissuade people from using condoms. The FDA should also seriously reevaluate Nonoxynol 9...

Definitely make a comment... there are other ways to package information that spins it as a positive.

To link directly to the proposed packaging changes (in pdf form): http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/comp/guidance/1548.pdf
To link directly to the e-Comments section at FDA: Labeling; Nonoxynol 9

 

[wvjules]

I think there's nothing wrong with the new proposed labeling. Afterall, it does greatly reduce and is not 100% safe. I think 16 year olds are smart enough to realize that protection, although not 100%, is still better than none at all. Besides, do you really think they read the labels anyway????

 

[ophie]

No... too many teenagers (people in general, actually) already think "This can't happen to me anyway." So if you tell them that what they've been told to use isn't going to work, they'll completely cast it aside. And we can't make decisions based on "people don't read labels anyway." We have to give them the information whether they read it or not. As such, the information given should encourage everyone to use condoms instead of telling them that it's not important.

Too many people only learn lessons the hard way. Shouldn't we do everything we can to show them that the momentary inconvenience of using a condom is well worth it when their lives and health are at stake?

 

[wvjules]

We have to give them the information whether they read it or not.

They want to say that condoms "greatly reduce, but do not eliminate"

So what's the problem???? They're giving correct information.

 

[ophie]

So what's the problem???? They're giving correct information.

Nice of you to leave out the part where I said the information we give should ENcourage condom use rather than discourage it. That's the important part. Condoms are a vital tool in stopping the spread of infectious diseases. Encouraging people to use them should be a priority of the FDA.

 

[wvjules]

I must have missed the part of the label where it says "condom use is not important" and the discouraging of use.

 

[Chicago526]

Well, they put "smoking causes cancer and death" on cigarettes and looked how well THAT worked!

No one reads the labels, people will do what people will do.

 

[DawnCt1]

I wonder how many people would board an airplane to California if the ticket said: "This plane has a 30 per cent chance of crashing on this flight". I know I wouldn't fly. Maybe some kids will rethink having sex. One could hope.

 

[Hercules10]

Actually it's usually the makers that advertise the effectiveness that attracts buyers of all ages. The loose advertising words on the package is what encourages the use. I also wish they would stress birth control. After all that's what they were used for to begin with.

 

[Castlebound]

I wonder how many people would board an airplane to California if the ticket said: "This plane has a 30 per cent chance of crashing on this flight". I know I wouldn't fly. Maybe some kids will rethink having sex. One could hope.

They won't rethink having sex. They will however rethink having sex with a condomif there are warnings all over the packaging. When I was in high school we learned how effective each type of contraceptive was. I think that a condom was 85-90% "if" used properly. I never thought that they were 100% effective. The Pill isn't even 100%.