FDA Tobacco Regulation Bill 2009 - Hope for Less Lung Cancer
After years of heated discussion about tobacco regulation, the U.S. House and Senate both passed the FDA Tobacco Regulation Bill this week by wide margins. One last stop at President Obama’s desk for a signature, and the deal is set. What will this mean?
First, the changes. Under the new bill:
- Cigarettes may no longer be labeled "light" or "mild," hence conveying a false sense of safety
- Flavored cigarettes will be history
- Warning labels on cigarette packages must cover 50% of the area on the front and back of the package. The labeling warning will be in capital letters
- No outdoor advertising will be allowed within 1000 feet of schools or playgrounds
- Vending machines containing cigarettes will only be allowed in adult-only establishments
- Tobacco manufacturers will be required to list cigarette ingredients
- The FDA will have authority to ask that manufacturers remove harmful ingredients
The hope through these changes is that fewer children will begin smoking, and cigarettes will be safer (relatively speaking anyway). As a mother of teenagers who understands human nature, the safety factor is exciting. There aren't many things that would make me happier than to see every U.S. citizen quit smoking today, but despite these advertising and labeling regulations, there will still be children who start smoking, and adults who continue to smoke. I have long wondered about the Japanese Lung Cancer/Smoking Paradox, the paradox that there are more male smokers in Japan, but they are less likely to develop lung cancer than male smokers in the U.S. One theory has been that there are lower levels of carcinogens in Japanese cigarettes. If this theory is correct, and we make similar changes, this bill could provide hope that we will see fewer cases of lung cancer in the future.
Of course, in my excitement, I am taking a huge leap of faith. How will the FDA regulate cigarettes? Does the FDA have the time and resources to address a product containing so many carcinogens. What changes will be made? Will we consult with similar agencies in other countries where cigarettes appear to be a tad less lethal?
What do you think about the FDA Tobacco Regulation Bill?
Photo: istockphoto.com
Comments
Some interesting changes, but they feel a bit too small. Will be interested to see how tobacco companies make their way design wise around the WARNING taking up 50 percent. Some graphic artists are about to get a payday.
Certainly, this bill is meaningless without increased funding for the FDA. The first and most obvious safety violation is going to be the tobacco, which contains naturally occurring nicotine, and under the FDA’s mandate, cigarrettes would have to remove tobacco as an ingredient as generally considered unsafe. Nicotine is regulated as a drug by the FDA and has been for years, but cigarettes have gotten a blank check, and a free ride because the FDA has not tightened their leash on the authority it has already been given. So, unfortunately, there is not going to be enough financial or support for this bill to do anything worthwhile. I applaud our lawmakers for their forethought, but it seems as though they do not go far enough.
Years ago I lost an uncle to lung cancer. A month ago I lost one of my best friends. Both were long-term heavy smokers. I should be delighted by this bill, but I cannot be.
This bill is a fraud. Your story omits some of the most basic facts about it.
1. The bill was mainly written by Altria (Philip Morris), the US’s largest tobacco company. Altria does not play games.
2. The bill does not ban flavored cigarettes as your story claims. It allows an elephant-sized loophole — methol. Note: menthol is a huge help to kids who would be put off by the taste of pure tobacco. Note: 80$ of African-American smokers prefer methol cigarettes. Methol cigarettes were linked to 14.6% of all African-American deaths in 2006. Note: whatever your race, menthol cigarettes are far more addictive than normal ones. (True, the bill prohibits clove flavored cigarettes. Ever smoked one? This is, sadly, typical of the “progress” this bill represents.)
3. The bill allows the FDA to ban electronic cigarettes — a new product which, like gum and patches, delivers nicotine without the tobacco tars that cause lung cancer. This product differs from gum and patches mainly in that many smokers have found it to be an effective substitute for cigarettes. Basic point: nicotine alone is certainly safer than nicotine + tars — and this bill will let the FDA take that choice away from smokers.
4. On the other hand, the bill specifically prohibits the FDA from requiring the elimination of nicotine from cigarettes. And while nicotine is not in itself what makes cigarettes so deadly, it’s what addicts people to them.
I would like to believe that this is a feel-good story for those of us who want to save lives. I can’t see that the 7 points highlighted in the story balance the ones that I have mentioned. (As I pointed out, one of the seven is just false.) If there is some reason to feel good about this bill as a totality, I would appreciate learning about it — write me at shvoss@gmail.com. Until I get this news, I’ll continue to think it’s a feel-good story only for Altria — as one recent article calls it, “cool, refreshing legislation for Philip Morris.”
Stephen Voss
Mat – I agree – too small, to0 late. But it is something – or is it? Douglas and Stephen raise questions that I couldn’t resolve in my mind as I wrote. Your comment about design is interesting and entertaining. If you hear about the salary of a graphic designer that can fit information on half a package I would be very interested – and would be happy to compare it in a relative sense to that of someone working on funding for lung cancer treatment and prevention.
Douglas – Thanks for bringing the funding issue to the surface. If the FDA is going to evaluate cigarettes, say, as they do a prescription medication (even with the limitation that they are prohibited from eliminating nicotine from cigarettes), this adds tremendous burden to their load. As it is, it would seem they already have their hands full. Did you see anything in the bill about doubling staffing at the FDA to accomodate this bill?
Stephen – First, my condolences on your losses. I wish I didn’t have to say I have been their myself with loved ones and understand a little. Your point number 4 is critical. The FDA is prohibited from eliminating nicotine from cigarettes. Teens will continue to experiment and become addicted and adults will continue to smoke to get this legal drug. The bill can’t touch that. I am hoping that this bill will at least begin to point us in the right direction – but as I contemplated the effect that banning tobacco billboards near skateparks may have on kids starting to smoke – I had to wonder. What will they be replaced with?
I am worried how this bill is going to effect the electronic cigarette market. Many people have found electronic cigarettes to be a great way to quit smoking, or at least a way to smoke in a healthier manner. The FDA has already banned the importation of electronic cigarettes. This new bill gives them the right to completely ban the sale of these devices countrywide. Hopefully they will act with the benefits of the electronic cigarettes in mind and not the loss of tax revenues that these devices threaten. So now before they go to the black market.
I read the whole Bill it does not say anything about regulating electronic cigarettes. It says smokeless tobacco.
I’ll be very thankful when the position on electronic cigarettes is brought to light and made solid. I have had a lot of visitors to my site (http://www.yourblucigs.com) ask me what the FDA is deciding, and to be honest, I can’t tell from looking at all the reports, as everyone is saying something different.
One would think that with products like blu, Njoy and the rest out there that deliver the cravings satisfaction without the tar, harmful carcinogens and the like that the FDA would be happy these products exist, as they’re much better than cancer sticks. But, with Phillip Morris fighting to have their way, it may be an uphill battle.
I am curious as to see how they are going to fit all the chemicals in smokes on a pack.I’m also interested in seeing how people react when they can’t buy Light, Menthol, Full Flavored, Ultra Lights any more. Granted this may give people a false sense that if they smoke a lighter kind they wont get cancer. I think it’s peoples rights to chose if they want lights or full flavored, there IS a difference in how strong it hits your lungs and how much more chemicals are put into each one. Oh yeah by the way SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER, it only helps AID in it…I’ve seen people who never smoked a day in their life die by lung cancer, and people who smoked 2-3 packs a day never get it. It’s all about CELL REPRODUCTION AND CELL MUTATION !
I am not a smoker but I am sick and tired reading and hearing about the horrors of smoking! What about alcohol? It’s okay for us to drink in front of our children, watch TV commercials for alcohol and so on! Alcohol does not come with a 50% Warning label on front and back nor does it have a Child Proof Cap and they ALSO get to air cute and sexy commercial that also has cool characters like the Captain that attract youngster interest! WHY are they not being restricted? Why is just smoking being picked on? I have a relative that was killed when a drunk driver plowed into her car! I also have a relative that died of lung cancer. He never smoked a day in his life! HOWEVER he always lived in a very busy city. Exhaust and factories played a huge role in his death. I wonder if his death was poled into how many people die of lung cancer. All lung cancer deaths can not be blamed on Smoke! Where you live, what you breath in via your job atmosphere, and quality of air in the city you live in play a huge role. Lets get realistic the people who are so anti smoking will have a fit if you take away there afternoon drinks or change what is available or limit what they are allowed to consume, and the smokers will have a fit if you take away or change or limit what they smoke.
You people can’t really hope for more regulations can you? Do you give any damn about your freedom? Let capitalism do its thing and allow people to CHOOSE what they do and do not smoke.
Welcome to the United Snakes, Land of the Thief, Home of the Slave
Really no matter what restrictions you put on smokes and or alcohol there will always be new smokers and new drinkers. Advertising has nothing to do with it! It’s called peer pressure and wanting to belong in a crowd. I just found out my 17 year old smokes. My husband nor I smoke. He told us it was to fit in that all of his friends either smoke or chew. Yes he knew it was unhealthy and yes he didn’t care. He also has friends that are of age to buy that purchase for him. So The only way your going to stop new smokers/drinkers is to ban outright and we all know that is never going to happen. This ban is a waste of money and of government time and so on. No matter what laws are passed or what restrictions are put on a product there will always be a way around them. ALWAYS There was when my parents grew up there was a way when I was growing up and my children found a way. This is ban/law is just another attempt at Big Tobacco to cut out the smaller guys and retain the market. Check out how many Democrats campaigns were funded by Big Tobacco and pharmaceutical companies that make the Nico gum and patches and then look further into that company and see what big tobacco company owns the majority of that pharmaceutical co and has the FDA and the Government in hand. Give me a break. the US Government is so corrupt it is funny! Capitalization is gone in its place is US socialism. Sad State we are in. What is next? Someone will say the US is spending to much money on medical bills for problems dealing with obesity and or diabetes and has to many obese people in it and laws will be passed banning treats and forced education? Its just a matter of time.
Democrats = socialism! Wake up people!