Opinion
Ayurvedic medicines mustn’t get a free pass on advertising
Summary
- India’s Supreme Court has upheld a ban on misleading therapeutic claims and done the cause of public health a favour. As Ayurvedic product launches face lighter regulation than allopathic drugs, we should at least keep their ad spiels in check.
The outbreak of covid in 2020 sparked a global war against a deadly new virus. Away from the spotlight, it also triggered a grand domestic battle between advocates of allopathy and Ayurveda.
The trigger was Patanjali Ayurved’s quick launch of Coronil, a purported ‘cure for corona’ that drew public attention to dodgy claims and protests from allopathic doctors. A war of words erupted over various other therapies.
In 2022, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) sought to put Patanjali and its founder Ramdev, a famous yoga guru, in the legal dock for running a smear campaign against allopathy.
The Supreme Court extracted a public apology from them, and on Tuesday, the bench hearing the case ordered IMA chief R.V. Asokan to widely publish a note of contrition over his criticism of the court for asking allopaths to curb their own ethical failings. Both sides have now been pulled up and given an earful by the judiciary.
Also read: Patanjali Misleading Ads Case: Supreme Court dismisses contempt case against Baba Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna
The court’s action of policy significance, however, was the stay imposed on a July notification issued by the Ayush ministry that would—in effect—have lifted India’s ban on misleading advertisements of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs. By foiling that attempt, India’s apex court has upheld the cause of public health.
On 27 August, the top court held that Rule 170 of India’s Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, which prohibits ads that may mislead people on the therapeutic value of medicines under those systems, shall “remain on statute books."
In August 2023, acting on the advice of a panel, the Ayush ministry had sent out a letter to all states and Union territories asking them not to implement the ban. In response, the Supreme Court asked for that letter to be withdrawn, which the ministry did—but only to issue a formal notice last month that “omitted" Rule 170.
This led the bench to squarely reinstate it, while asking the ministry to explain the omission. What the ministry has to say is awaited, but the rationaleof the rule in question need not arouse a needless controversy. Its purpose is clear.
As a basic policy, India must allow and honour traditional systems of medicine. Patients and caregivers need the liberty of choice. But we must accept the fallout of a key difference between allopathy and Ayurveda.
Also read: A new Patanjali: The monk who sold toothpaste is at it again
While allopathic drugs undergo rigorous clinical tests of safety and efficacy before they’re approved for use, Ayurvedic formulations are subject to softer regulation aimed at ensuring they follow classical texts and are safe, even though their makers could conduct trials of their own to show how useful they are.
Today, modern pills with proven track records on specific uses dominate the popular notion of ‘medicine’ to such an extent that their ‘halo effect’ rubs off on all other products sold as medicinal, including herbal remedies that lack trial data on efficacy. Since the distinction is not easy to discern, many people in need of healthcare might simply go by what packages and ad spiels say.
Hence, unless we can screen traditional offerings for reliability, with trials kept transparent for others to check and corroborate results, we need measures in place to shield people from curative overhype. In other words, a strict advertising code for Ayurveda is a must.
When the Ayush ministry was set up in late 2014, doctors had hoped it would put Ayurvedic products to scientific tests and filter out dubious stuff on sale, not just act as an agency for their promotion. Today, the least it can do is not let lax oversight of market practices get in the way of better health for all.
