There are very strict regulations on the advertisment of medicines in the UK. I am wondering if this book might fall foul of the law tbh.
The regs explaining this are known as the 'Blue Guide'.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/blue-guide-advertising-and-promoting-medicines
It says:
The UK legislation regulating the advertising of medicines applies to all forms and means of advertising licensed medicines – those granted a marketing authorisation, traditional herbal registration or homeopathic registration. As well as products with a UK-wide licence, it also covers products licensed by the MHRA for sale only in Great Britain (GB) and those licensed for sale only in Northern Ireland (NI) by the MHRA or by the European Commission.
Products covered include branded and generic products for supply by prescription only and over-the-counter products for sale through pharmacies and on general sale. Special provisions are also made, where appropriate, for particular categories of products, for example, registered homeopathic remedies.
UK legislation sets out the rules for medicines advertising in general and the specific requirements and restrictions for advertising directed at the public and for advertising directed at healthcare professionals. It also sets out the statutory powers available to the MHRA in carrying out its functions and taking any necessary action on behalf of Health Ministers where a potential breach has been identified. It makes it the responsibility of “any person” who promotes a medicine, including the licence holder, a private individual or any third party such as journalists, publishers or public relations agencies, to ensure compliance with the legislation.
In terms of what an advert is:
The Regulations apply to “advertisements” for “medicinal products”.
”Advertisement” is defined in regulation 7 of the Regulations (advertisements relating to medicinal products). It is a broad definition. It introduces the important concept of activities “designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or consumption of medicinal products”.
Where I think there is an issue is that its not naming specific branding, but it definitely is refering to medicines.
And goes on to say:
An advertisement is not limited to specific media. It includes articles published in journals, magazines and newspapers, displays on posters and notices, photographs, film, broadcast material, video recording, electronic transmissions and material posted on the internet. Point-of-sale materials, leaflets, booklets and other promotional materials that include specific product claims and which are supplied separately from the product may also be considered advertisements. Words forming part of a soundtrack or video recording are within the definition of advertisement, as is the spoken word.
The following are not advertisements for the purposes of the Regulations:
reference material, factual informative statements or announcements, trade catalogues and price lists, provided that they do not make a product claim;
information relating to human health or diseases where there is no reference to medicinal products;
correspondence, possibly accompanied by material of a non-promotional nature, to answer a specific unsolicited question about a medicinal product.
Notably:
5.4 Children
Advertising of medicines should not be directed exclusively or principally at children (under-16s). Nor should advertising material aimed at parents and carers be included in non-promotional material aimed at children.
And
5.5 Information necessary for the correct use of a medicine
Advertisements directed at the public should be presented in such a way that it is clear that the message or material is an advertisement and that the product being advertised is a medicine.
Annex 3 sets out the statutory particulars to be included in advertising to the public. Where an advertisement promotes more than one medicinal product, these particulars must be included for each product being advertised.
Advertisements to the public must include the name of the medicine and the common name where the product contains only one active ingredient. They must also include the information necessary for correct use of the medicine, which is interpreted to mean one or more indications for use of the product.
And
5.7 Recommendations and endorsements
Advertisements to the general public should not contain material which refers to recommendations by scientists or healthcare professionals, or which refers to recommendations by celebrities who, because of their celebrity, could encourage consumption of products
5.8 Sponsorship
Sponsorship linked to a brand of medicine would be acceptable in principle for products classified for over-the-counter sale. Any endorsement by individual celebrities would not be considered acceptable. (See also section 5.7 above). Sponsorships by manufacturers or pharmaceutical companies should not include any promotion of prescription only medicines (POM), whether directly or indirectly. Schemes, charities or like activities cannot be sponsored in the name of a POM. A simple statement of sponsorship by ‘Brand X’ would be classed as a reminder advertisement and would not attract the need for the statutory particulars listed in Annex 3, provided no product claims are made.
What concerns me here is, we have a group of online 'celebs' (influencers) who are actively trying to promote the use of drugs, directly at under 16s and isn't informing about the negative side effects (indeed it rubbishes the mere idea of these).
We either have a very flagrant disregard for the law with this OR we've stumbled across a very glaring hole in the current legislation, which is allowing this to happen because there is a vague / broad talk of 'products' without the direct use of a name. We have got influencers actively trying to use their status to promote this though without balanced information and its trying to pass itself off as 'educational'. Its not educational if its not giving balanced information about possible negative side effects. A delusional idea of taking testesotrone and then ending up living happily ever after with a supportive girlfriend is gross and very much promising a lot more than the product is ever going to be able to deliver and its aimed a vulnerable group.
Either way, I would argue that Waterstones, in deciding that this should be short listed for an award is ALSO promoting either directly or indirectly medical products to children. And that in itself is highly questionable and Waterstones should be able to give a better response with the above in mind. Even if the law is fuzzy and does have this loophole, I would argue that advertising material in this way, certainly is against the principles of this law and that makes it dubious given its a Children's prize.
This isn't about education. That needs to be stressed. Its giving biased, faultly and potentially dangerous information to a vulnerable group.
I hope someone does look into this further, from this angle, and asks some questions either to embarass Waterstones or to ask whether the law is currently insufficient and whether there is a grey area where indirect marketing of medical products to children needs to be tightened up.