Home' Australian Pharmacist : Australian Pharmacist February 2016 Contents Australian Pharmacist February 2016 I ©Pharmaceutical Society of Australia Ltd.
Items in the Product news section are prepared from information provided by the companies named in each
item. They are included for the information of PSA members. It is up to the individual member to use their
professional judgment to decide on the merit or otherwise of each product mentioned. PSA neither endorses
nor confirms claims made in the items. (Where provided by the company references citing evidence are
included with the items.)
Australian Pharmacist is a professional journal. It will carry only advertising which is likely to be of interest to all
pharmacists and which does not reflect unfavourably directly or by implication on the pharmacy profession or
the professional practice of pharmacy. Advertising which does not comply with this policy will be refused. It is
the responsibility of the advertisers to comply with the relevant Commonwealth and State law. Advertising does
not constitute an endorsement by PSA of the claims, products or services.
Read in greater detail more regularly than any other pharmacy title –
such constant behaviour means you can count on our readers to open
any issue and be seen!
» Greatest number of recipients opening and reading (82%)
» Greatest number of readers reading every issue (48%)
Engage with almost 18,800 PSA members every month
(15,500 pharmacists in print and 16,000 in digital form).
» Australian Pharmacist is read by 65% of community pharmacists
It has an extremely strong CPD program followed by more than
10,000 pharmacists – a typical monthly article receives 3000 plus
assessments, with highs over 4000!
» Greatest average proportion read (73%)
» Circulation 14,872 cab March 2013
TO ADVERTISE in the best-read pages in pharmacy media and give your campaign real
impact, and greater recognition, contact Tremain Media.
Ph: 02 9988 4689
Ph: 02 9871 5520
Ph: 0402 055 022
*Competitive Advantage Research August 2012 – 632 practicing community pharmacists
Answers for crossword on page 76.
Across: 7. Paediatric, 10. Obese,
11. Thermometer, 13. Antipyretic.
Down: 1. Benign, 2. Hyperthermia,
3. Seizure, 4. Lethargy, 5. Febrile,
6. Ibuprofen, 8. Paracetamol, 9. Infection,
sectors are priority areas for the ACCC,
to ensure that consumers are given
accurate information when making their
The Court ordered that RB remove the
Nurofen Specific Pain products from
retail shelves within three months. The
court has also ordered RB to publish
website and newspaper corrective
notices, implement a consumer
protection compliance program, and
pay the ACCC’s costs. The ACCC agreed
an interim packaging arrangement
with RB for use following the removal of
these products. This will clearly disclose
to consumers that the products are
equally effective for other forms of pain.
A hearing on penalty will be held on a
date to be fixed by the Court.
In proceedings commenced by the
Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission (ACCC), the Federal
Court, in December, found that
Reckitt Benckiser (RB) had engaged in
misleading conduct in contravention
of the Australian Consumer Law by
representing that its Nurofen Specific
Pain products were each formulated to
treat a specific type of pain, when the
products were identical.
The Nurofen Specific Pain product range
consists of Nurofen Back Pain, Nurofen
Period Pain, Nurofen Migraine Pain and
Nurofen Tension Headache. The court
found that RB made misleading
representations on the packaging of
each Nurofen Specific Pain product,
and on its website, that each product
was formulated to treat a particular
type of pain and solely or specifically
treated a particular type of pain. In
fact, each product contained the same
active ingredient, ibuprofen lysine
342mg, and was no more effective at
treating the type of pain described on its
packaging than any of the other Nurofen
Specific Pain products. RB admitted
that it had engaged in the contravening
conduct and consented to the orders
made by the Court.
ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said:
‘ The ACCC took these proceedings
because it was concerned that
consumers may have purchased
these products in the belief that they
specifically treated a certain type of
pain, based on the representations on
the packaging, when this was not the
case. Truth in advertising and consumer
issues in the health and medical
Links Archive Australian Pharmacist January 2016 Australian Pharmacist March 2016 Navigation Previous Page Next Page