With 60 percent of us now searching the Internet for health-related information, you can understand why the marketers of drugs and medical devices are so eager to implant their messages online — particularly in social media sites and blogs.

But how complete are those messages? Are consumers getting the full picture (risks as well as benefits) of these products?

And how comfortable are you with the idea of drug and device companies “talking” directly with you or your physicians through social media sites like Facebook, or of them paying a blogger to write about a product without your knowledge?

Until last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration appeared to permit the pharmaceutical industry to follow a “one click” rule:  A company could promote a product, such as in a search-engine advertisement, as long as the ad linked to complete safety information elsewhere.

But, as Bridget Kuehn reported last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the FDA is no longer happy with that approach — a message it articulated in warning letters sent to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies last April. Writes Kuehn:

The letters got Big Pharma’s attention. It immediately requested more clarification on what the FDA considered acceptable online advertising, particularly for social media sites.

Of course, the companies (and their lobbyists) had their own ideas for what the FDA should allow.

Last November, the FDA held a hearing on the issue. Most of the people testifying at the hearing, reported Kuehn, were representatives of companies that specialize in online interactive marketing of drugs.

“Many encouraged the FDA to look beyond just online advertising, and to allow companies and their surrogates to interact directly with patients or physicians through online chat rooms or such third-party Web sites as Facebook,” wrote Kuehn.

In addition, a representative for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association argued that the FDA should hold its drug companies responsible only for information they post on their own Web sites.

Consumer advocates, however, told the FDA that such loosening of the rules was a bad idea. In fact, tougher rules were needed — and that companies should be held accountable for any information “they create or cause to be created” on third-party websites. Furthermore, those websites should be required to disclose their financial relationship with the companies.

How will the FDA shape its final rules on this matter? Kuehn did not offer any speculations.

This is not a minor matter, however. As one expert on the effects of advertisements on public health told Kuehn: “Prescription drugs are a different type of consumer commodity. If you purchase the wrong bar of soap, that’s not likely to have any effects on your health, but if you end up with the wrong prescription drug, that very well could have some effects on your health that you would want to know about.”