It is reported that Americans spend $220 Billion on pharmacedutical drugs each year. But under FDA procedures it relies upon on the pharmaceutical industry to conduct research on the risks and benefits of new drugs. The law assumes the drug companies will conduct objective studies regarding the risks and problems of their products with the expectation the drug companies to promptly and accurately report back to the FDA the results. In spite of the fact the industry is a multi billion dollar one, there is no legal requirement for an independent and objective system to clinically study the safety of new drugs the FDA allows to be put on the market each year. This system of trust has resulted in more then one instance of unsafe drugs being allowed on the market causing injury and death to the public due to the lack of  legal and ethical responsibility on the part of the pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Jerry Avorn, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School has published in The New England Journal of Medicine, one of the nation’s most prestigious medical journals, a perspective he has entitled "Dangerous Deception – Hiding the Evidence of Adverse Drug Effects." (Vol. 355:2169-1271 November 23, 2006 Number 21). He points out that in September 2006 the FDA issued a warning that the drug Trasylol, manufactured by Bayer and used to reduce bleeding in cardiac surgery patients, could cause heart failure, stroke and death. Medical experts had been expressing concern about it’s safety since the FDA approved it in 1993. According to Dr. Avorn, it turned out Bayer had previously hired a private research group whose study concluded that patients who received the drug had higher mortality rates and substantially more renal damage then patients who did not receive the drug. However, Bayer had never provided this report to the FDA nor even acknowledged it existed. Dr. Avorn points out that in previous litigation against Bayer over the cholesterol lowering drug Baycol, an internal company memo was found arguing against doing any study of the risk of that drug because "If the FDA asks for bad news, we have to give it, but if we don’t have it, we can’t give it to them."This situation is not unique. The article cites other instances such as the fact Merck had commissioned a private study over their drug Vioxx, but then objected to the findings about problems with the drug. So Merck had a second private study done, but which also concluded there were risks associated with the drug. However, neither of these studies were ever made public by Merck until after the drug had already been removed from the market, according to Dr. Avorn.

These are only a few of the multiple examples of concealment by the drug industry about problems with their products until after they have collected as much profit as they can from the sale of the drugs. Even after action is taken, the products can end up being sold elsewhere in the world. The pharmaceutical industry loves the U.S. because of the enormous profits they are allowed to make here. The industry is the single most profitable industry in the U.S. with nine of the largest pharmaceutical companies generating an enormous profit for their investment. It’s reported that on average Italians pay only 53% of the cost of a U.S. drug, the French 55% and the Canadians about 62% of what Americans are spending for the same drugs. The amount American’s spend for drugs has increased by 15% per year for the past several years at several times the rate of inflation. Television direct appeals to consumers has become a favorite way of pedaling drug company products. It is where the majority of the drug industry’s $2.5 Billion dollar a year (and growing) advertising budget is spent. Drug companies try to influence doctor’s prescriptions by showering them with free samples, supplies and trips. At the same time it is reported that medical colleges routinely ignore guidelines to protect the integrity of clinical research when financially supported by the pharmaceutical industry, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The Journal has also reported conflicts of interest at medical schools doing research for the pharmaceutical industry due to financial interests by the researchers in the outcome. It advocates policies prohibiting researchers from owning stock, having stock options or decision making positions in a company that they are involved in doing research for.

The FDA has become the lapdog instead of the watchdog of the pharmaceutical industry. Problems began in 1992 when Congress passed a new law imposing deadlines to complete drug evaluations for approval by the FDA. One FDA reviewer is quoted as saying "with the clock ticking, you did the best you could."  The New England Journal of Medicine has characterized the review system as "unacceptable anywhere else in research."  The companies don’t take their responsibilities seriously and the FDA lacks the resources and, due to political considerations, the incentive to do much about it. In the meantime, Americans are a risk from the drugs that are sold on the market.