Have we indeed come to this, where a corporation has grown in size and influence to the point where it begins to assume the roles of government agencies?

If they can, they will.

Wal-Mart's been throwing its "largest retailer" clout around for some time. People into Goth bands tell me Wal-Mart has insisted on changes in album cover art or they won't stock the album. Naturally, "gangsta" rap artists flashing gang-style gestures on their album covers are perfectly fine with Wal-Mart's censors.

So, in an unrelated field, Wal-Mart already demands special versions of retail products they sell.

Why overreaching? They're a buyer, and Pfizer is a seller. I tell my vendors how I want stuff all the time. Since it's an OTC drug, it's pretty much guaranteed to be ineffective, anyway.

On another digressive note: you'd prefer a govt. agency? How long has Sudafed been identified as a cheap-n-cheesy meth component? Thanks, FDA!

Well, Scott, if you can't see a qualitative difference between the packaging of a brisket and the make-up of medication, I suggest you might need to spend a bit more time on your new bicycle. ;-)

And, yes, I prefer a government agency that's at least staffed by medical personnel over a corporate board of directors. I've worked with the latter enough to know how they make decisions.

And, by the way, Sudafed happens to be the only medication I take regularly...daily, in fact...and it works better than anything else I've ever tried.

Mr. Freen, the concept of a retailer (or manufacturer) telling its vendors (or suppliers) how they will do business is as old as business itself, and I've got no complaint with Wal-Mart exercising its marketing power and savvy to cater to what it perceives are the desires of its customers. But, as I alluded in my reply to Scott, the stakes are much different for the composition of medication vs. the packaging of rap albums.

I'm very surprised that you can take an OTC drug daily and still find it effective. I learn something new every day.

Viz govt. docs: are those the same ones who whiffed on the dead fat people numbers? Just checking. ;-)

Viz govt. docs: are those the same ones who whiffed on the dead fat people numbers? Just checking. ;-)

Sorta proves my point about what happens when people and organizations step out of their natural roles.

Tell you what...let's turn over the statistical analysis to the guys from Wal-Mart (that's what they're good at) and leave the scientists alone to do medicine.

Sudafed PE should already be available- I've had it in my stores for a couple weeks. I've even got the generic. If you ask your pharmacist, they've probably had it in some form behind the counter for years.

Phenylephrine isn't as effective as pseudoephedrine... according to one of my pharmacists. BUT, it isn't as easy to make speed with it. (not impossible, just not easy)

This is not a nanny-ish decision by Wal-mart, it's a business one. Having the only decongestant behind the counter is a hassle, so we (as an industry, I don't work for WM) want to have a visable alternative on the floor we can sell to the customer. Note that you can still find formulations of pseudoephedrine combined with other drugs on the sales floor of Wal-mart and others, mostly because these don't get stolen (as much), because you can't separate out what you need to manufacture illicit drugs.

What I doubt anyone outside of the retail or law enforcement community comprehends is just how big the loss is in terms of theft. I have no doubt that Texas retailers alone lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in pseudoephedrine sales to theft in '04... and that was after anti-theft devices had been installed in many stores. Try to imagine the loss, nationwide.

Oh sure, we care about the drug issue from a community point of view- but the bottom line is that this is shrink/loss (money) issue. When a retailer loses $100 in theft, they don't have to sell an additional $100 to make up for it, they have to sell enough to make a profit of $100. The margin in grocery stores tends to be about 2% or less... so you get an idea of why this is such a big issue.

Jack, thanks for the insights. And, just for the record, I have no problem -- none whatsoever -- with Wal-Mart, et al's decision to move these products behind the pharmacy counters. I understand the cost to the retailer and, ultimately, to me of the shoplifting you describe. It's a shame that we honest shoppers are inconvenienced, but that's not the retailer's fault.

My quibble is with Wal-Mart's alleged intervention with the drugmaker to reformulate the medication. That's what I think is overreaching on the part of the retailer.

You're also the first to point out that meth can still be manufactured with the new product. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere else. It bears watching...

I didn't think you had an issue with the OTC thing... I just had to vent on a sore subject.

Truly, I don't believe WM is doing anything different from any other retailer. I think I remember this being discussed amongst the various major retailers a while back. (we do, sometimes, co-operate) This is an industry-wide problem. I'm not cheerleading for WM... but any article that discusses them seems to always make them look bad in some way, because, you know, they're eeeviiil.

Oh, and my understanding is that while you "could" (in theory) make meth out of the new formulation, you couldn't do it with the common household items you can use on plain psuedoephedrine. It would be Advanced Chemistry.

Since the Methanites can't remove additional incredients (such as antihistamines or pain relievers), and therefore only go after the straight pseudoephedrine, why not add some innocuous ingredient to the plain Sudafed? Preferabley something that would make the intermmediate-stage meth mix sufficiently unstable to be exposive. Sure would make it easier to find meth labs: just listen for the "boom!"

Jack, I'm not an anti-Wal-Mart crusader. I've always been impressed by their market savvy and innovation, and I wish I'd bought their stock 20 years ago. I don't think big is always bad. I just think they had a misstep with their Pfizer strategy, and I don't like the implications that such things might continue to happen.

It would be Advanced Chemistry.

Once again, the little guy takes it in the shorts, while Big Business continues to make the Big Bucks. After all, the latter can afford "Advanced Chemists." ;-)

Sure would make it easier to find meth labs: just listen for the "boom!"

Umm...based on my admittedly limited knowledge in this area, if the meth process was anymore unstable than it already is, we'd be seeing Sudafed explosions on the store shelves!