Pfizer slow to offer Sudafed alternative
The announcement Sudafed will begin to hit U.S. store shelves next month without the ingredient used to make meth is long-overdue news. Rural Tennessee’s runaway meth problem is in dire need of a few speeds bumps, and this is an appropriate place to start.
Pfizer, which produces Sudafed, says it will release a new medicine called Sudafed PE. It will not contain ephedrine, a key ingredient in the production of meth. Instead, it will contain an active chemical called phenylephrine, which cannot be converted to meth.
For the thousands of Warren countians whose lives have been altered by meth’s unrelenting grasp, this is a sign progress is being made. For years, all the ingredients needed to make meth could be purchased straight from store shelves. Instead of resistance, there was a red carpet.
In recent years, local stores have taken steps to restrict the availability of Sudafed and other medicine containing ephedrine. The products were placed at the check-out line, or the pharmacy, and were only sold in normal quantities.
Now Pfizer has taken the fight one step further by eliminating ephedrine from Sudafed. The overwhelming question, and one several high-ranking Tennessee officials want answered, is why has it taken so long to get rid of the ephedrine?
Pfizer has been well aware ephedrine is a crucial chemical needed for meth. And Pfizer has sold its products without ephedrine overseas since 2003.
The obvious reason Pfizer has not made such a move is money. Sudafed is a profitable brand name and Pfizer doesn’t want to take any action which could jeopardize its cash flow.
That would be an understandable stance if your product wasn’t enabling people to make a highly addictive drug. It’s a drug which has destroyed lives and destroyed families.
Furthermore, if you can hold store employees responsible for selling large quantities of Sudafed to meth-makers, the next step is to hold the pharmaceutical company itself responsible. Two local convenience store workers were sent to prison because law officers proved they sold large quantities of medicine with ephedrine, and knew it was being used to produce meth. If that’s the case, why not punish Pfizer, which has known some of its products were being used to make meth? What’s the distinction?
Pfizer has finally taken action, but not because the company is concerned about the well-being of Americans. It’s concerned about the well-being of its bottom line.
Oklahoma lawmakers have already taken action to place all ephedrine products behind the counter and the move has paid immediate dividends. Oklahoma officials report meth lab seizures plummeted by 80 percent in less than a year. Tennessee legislators will consider similar actions this year.
Without easy shelf access, there’s no question Sudafed sales would suffer, hence the release of Sudafed PE.
With over 1,200 meth labs busted in Tennessee in less than a year, and an estimated 750 children removed from the custody of meth abusers last year, it’s a shame the threat of diminished profits was required for Pfizer to act. A company which produces drugs to supposedly help people should have acted on its own.