Smokers Rights Newsletter
Location: FDA
Topic: FDA Regulation Page 4
Michael Siegel. American Lung Association Deceives Constituents in Promoting FDA Tobacco Legislation








FDA Tobacco Advisory Committee: 6 Jokers In A Stacked Deck
Bad hand dealt to consumers
BROOKLYN, NY -- (MrPressRelease.com and OfficialWire) -- 03/10/10 --
The ostensible point of the FDA's new congressionally-granted powers to regulate tobacco was to responsibly oversee the manufacture, marketing and distribution of tobacco in the name of harm reduction.
"But instead," says Audrey Silk, founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.), "the panel they've chosen to accomplish this task seems deliberately selected to steer away from that mission toward another: promoting lucrative substitutions.  Far from being composed of objective and cleanly disinterested scientists,  the list of  participants  announced so far has been shown to be deeply biased against tobacco,  biased against smokers and neck-deep in pharmaceutical-rooted conflicts of interest."
...   Jonathan Samet, the Committee's chairman, is director of the Institute for Global Tobacco Control, which is funded by Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of nicotine replacement products and quit-smoking drugs.  An activist in the stamp-out-tobacco movement since the early 1980's, he's also pursued his studies through the generous funding of anti-tobacco lobby groups and GlaxoSmithKline.
...   Dr.  Neil Benowitz scores a trifecta-- financially beholden to Pfizer, GSK, and Nabi Pharmaceuticals. Most famously, Benowitz co-authored a study whose purpose was to establish a scientific basis for the use of Pfizer's Chantix as a quit-smoking aid; thereafter he continued to act as a paid consultant in promoting the drug's use.  Chantix, called "the most dangerous drug in America" in 2008 by the Institute for Safe Medication Practice, has also earned a black box from the FDA as an established cause of  "serious neuropsychiatric symptoms" including  violence,  hallucinations, seizures, uncontrolled muscular spasms,  clinical depression and completed suicide. The FAA banned its use by pilots.
...  Dr.  Dorothy Hatsukami is a recipient of a grant from Nabi Biopharmacueticals to develop a vaccine (NicVAX) against nicotine use.  Anti-nicotine vaccines are said to get their effect by blocking the pleasure receptors in the brain.
...  Dr.  Jack Henningfield, another paid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline,  additionally owns the patent on a proprietary nicotine replacement product.
...  Dr. Greg Connolly, a former Director of Tobacco Control for the state of Massachusetts,  has long been among the most active and ardent of the Anti-Smoking advocates in the history of such advocacy.   In his official capacity,  and with taxpayer money, he  has denigrated,  banned and "denormalized" smokers. Further, according to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, "Connolly is the most extreme anti-harm reduction person I've ever heard of."
...  Most egregious where C.L.A.S.H. is concerned, Patricia Nez Henderson was chosen by FDA to "represent the public," as though the "public" were composed of,  and only composed of,  professional anti-smokers and nonsmokers.  As a member of the board of the extremist  Americans for Nonsmokers Rights-- a well-known anti-smoker group – Ms. Henderson's perspective is hardly "representative" of the public whose interests are directly affected by the actions of this committee and the “public,” it was reasonable to assume, the FDA meant when soliciting an advocate to fill that seat.  The "public," in this case, is the consumer.
"You’d think," Silk comments, "they’d want to hear the smokers' perspective and even make use of the smokers' experience in designing their government-approved cigarette.”
In appraising the FDA's choices for this panel, the Wall Street Journal understatedly opined that "the[se] selections raised questions about whether the members would have a conflict of interest on topics such as whether to approve a low-carcinogen smokeless tobacco product as a safer alternative to cigarettes." After all, it continued, "[s]uch products compete for smokers' dollars against smoking-cessation aids such as" [those made by many of the panelists' pharmaceutical backers.]
Dr. Michael Siegel, an anti-tobacco advocate and professor of Public Health at Boston University, added his own appraisal: "There is no way this panel can objectively consider tobacco product regulation and policy - based purely on the science - in the midst of such a potpourri of pharmaceutical financial interests and conflicts of interest."
And Dr. Whelan summed it up: "It's hard to imagine a more biased group."
“A scene from Wonderland,” Silk says. “And we’re Alice when, at trial, the Red Queen declares ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’ When Alice objects that that's not a fair trial, the Queen commands, 'Off with her head.'  Alice then pointedly asks, ‘Who cares for you? You're nothing but a pack of cards!' at which point the pack rose up and came flying down upon her.”
"This particular pack of cards," says Silk, "is full of misrepresentative and hurtful jokers.  And somebody ought to care."
http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=109607


Yet Another Supposed Public Health Victory from the FDA Tobacco Law Goes Down the Tubes: Ban on "Light" Cigarettes Will Have No Effect

October 8, 2009
By Michael Siegel, MD, MPH

According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, two of the major public health victories from the passage of the FDA tobacco legislation -- which were supposed to save "countless lives" -- were the ban on flavored cigarettes and the ban on the use of descriptors like "light" and "low-tar" that mislead consumers into believing that these cigarettes are safer.

But one by one, these (false) promises have come tumbling to the ground.

First, it was the promise that the ban on flavored cigarettes would break the cycle of addiction by helping to end the tobacco industry's ability to addict our nation's children. The Campaign wrote that: "The ban on candy and fruit-flavored cigarettes is a critical step to end one of the most insidious tactics the tobacco industry has used to target and addict children."

But the truth came out: not a single product produced by Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, or Lorillard was affected by the cigarette flavoring ban, very few youths smoke products that are affected by the ban, and in the entire cigarette market, less than 0.2% of all cigarettes consumed are flavored cigarettes covered by the ban. The truth is that far from being a critical step to halt addiction, this aspect of the law does literally nothing to protect kids from addiction.

Now, it is the promise that the ban on descriptors such as "light" and "low-tar" will eliminate the deception of consumers, who are led to believe that these products are safer because of this terminology.

In its propaganda supporting the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Campaign suggested that this legislation would "end the tobacco industry's deceptive marketing of "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes."

However, according to new information released today by the Boston Globe, the ban on "light" and "low-tar" descriptors will have no effect because cigarette companies have developed a way to use colors in cigarette packaging to convey the same information that was previously conveyed through this terminology.

According to the article: "The cigarettes in the royal blue package aren’t Pall Mall Lights anymore. Now, they’re called Pall Mall Blues. Salem Lights, once sheathed in a kelly green box, are now cloaked in pastels and white, and known as Salem Gold Box. With the new branding, and use of hues shown to evoke feelings of smoothness and health, a leading tobacco company has revealed a subtle sales strategy for an era of unprecedented federal oversight: Let the colors speak to smokers in the same way the soon-to-be-banned words “mild,’’ “light,’’ and “ultralight’’ did. Harvard researchers and other tobacco control specialists see in the new monikers and lighter, brighter palettes evidence that cigarette producers are intent on subverting a new law that empowers the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco companies - including a provision that as of next June 22 will banish words that promote certain cigarettes as safer. Tobacco control specialists have long harbored particular contempt for “mild’’ and “light’’ cigarettes, arguing they manipulate smokers into thinking those brands are less harmful when there’s no scientific evidence to support that claim."

"R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, maker of the Pall Mall and Salem brands, denies attempting to bypass the law and says it is merely seeking to guide customers to their favorite brands. But researchers said they recognize the packaging changes as a tactic the industry has rolled out in other countries with stringent tobacco rules. Studies conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom, which both have a longer history of restricting tobacco industry marketing, found that smokers believe products labeled as “silver,’’ “gold,’’ or “smooth’’ are safer and easier to stop using than high-octane cigarettes. “These tricks are now well-established,’’ said Stanton Glantz, a tobacco control specialist at the University of California, San Francisco." ...

"Reynolds, the nation’s second-biggest cigarette company, makes no secret of its reason for altering the packaging. Company spokesman David Howard cited both the impending federal regulation and a federal court ruling - currently on hold - that would also expunge the mild and light names. “By using designations such as colors,’’ Howard said, “that makes it possible for retailers and adult tobacco consumers to clearly identify the different styles moving forward.’’ The manufacturer used focus groups and other research to arrive at the new package designs, already evident on four company brands and coming soon to three of its best-known products, Camel, Doral, and Winston. Harvard School of Public Health researcher Greg Connolly, former director of Massachusetts’ tobacco control program, said he noticed the changes on a stop at a West Virginia convenience store a few weeks back. Connolly decided to see what would happen when he asked the clerk for a pack of Salem Ultra Lights.“He gave me a pack of Salem Silvers, and I said, ‘No, no, no, where are the lights?’ ’’ Connolly recalled. “And he said, ‘These are lights, these are the same thing. All they’ve done is change the name because of the new federal requirement."

The Rest of the Story

This would all really not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that we (me and a small number of other tobacco control advocates who opposed the FDA tobacco legislation) predicted that exactly this scenario would unfold: the cigarette flavoring ban would have no effect because no cigarettes were actually affected by the ban (menthol cigarettes are exempt) and the "lights" ban would have no effect because cigarette companies would start using coloring to convey the differences between "lights" and other brands.

Of course, Philip Morris knew all of this going into its negotiations with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. So the question is whether the Campaign was simply outsmarted by Philip Morris or whether the Campaign actually knew that this was the case and decided to deliberately mislead its constituents and the public.

Either way, the rest of the story is that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' and other anti-smoking groups' promises about the FDA tobacco legislation were false promises. They were pure propaganda, rather than science-based or evidence-based claims. And now the chickens are coming home to roost.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/yet-another-supposed-public-health.html.


Sweet Lies About Kids and Smoking
The FDA's new ban on flavored cigarettes won't prevent teen smoking

Steve Chapman | September 28, 2009

At least since 1994, when seven tobacco executives testified before Congress that they didn't think cigarettes were addictive, the public has not put great trust in those who sell carcinogens for a living. What Americans may not realize is that they also shouldn't believe the people who are supposed to protect us from tobacco. When it comes to cigarettes, the federal government can blow smoke with the best of them.

That became clear the other day, when the Food and Drug Administration announced it was prohibiting the sale of cigarettes with candy or fruit flavors. "These flavored cigarettes are a gateway for many children and young adults to become regular smokers," said Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. The ban, said Howard Koh, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, "will break that cycle [of addiction] for the more than 3,600 young people who start smoking daily."

Sure it will. And I'm Megan Fox.

When it comes to escorting kids into addiction, such cigarettes are more like the eye of a needle than a gateway. You would never know from the government's pronouncements that the nation's three major tobacco companies—R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, and Lorillard—don't even make them. Notorious lines like Warm Winter Toffee and Winter Mocha Mint were removed from the market years ago. The only flavor the major producers use anymore is menthol, which happens to be one the FDA chose not to ban.

Only a few small companies still offer the sort of flavors targeted by the government. According to one maker, Kretek International, these cigarettes account for less than two-tenths of 1 percent of all U.S. sales.

When I asked an FDA spokesperson what portion of the cigarettes smoked by teens are flavored, she told me the agency doesn't know. So how does it know they serve as "a gateway for many children"? How does it know that banning them will have any effect on the number of new tobacco addicts? Actually, it doesn't.

In any case, the number of kids using these products can't be very large. Michael Siegel, a physician and public health professor at Boston University, says that 87 percent of all high school smokers choose Marlboro, Camel, or Newport, which don't come in tutti-frutti flavors.

No surprise there. Siegel says that teenagers smoke because they want to seem older. But smoking something that tastes like bubble gum sends the opposite signal. Even when flavored cigarettes were more widely available, the great majority of adolescent smokers found them about as appealing as a Raffi concert.

The government's figures on kids who start smoking are equally deceptive. When the assistant HHS secretary says 3,600 youngsters start smoking daily, he's not using those terms in the way most people would. I smoked a couple of cigarettes in my youth, but I never "started smoking," any more than I "started speaking Chinese" the one time I attended a Mandarin class.

It's true that 3,600 kids under the age of 17 try cigarettes for the first time every day, but that doesn't mean they will all become nicotine junkies. Many if not most of the experimenters soon lose interest. By the government's own account, only about 1,000 teens each day become daily smokers. For a lot of adolescents who "start smoking," there is no cycle of addiction to break, because they manage to avoid addiction on their own.

Lost in the government's propaganda is that if the tobacco companies are trying to recruit kids into smoking, they are doing a very poor job at it. Last year, the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Survey found that smoking among high school seniors is at the lowest level in the 33 years the project has been keeping track. Among 8th-graders, tobacco use is down by two-thirds since the mid-1990s; among 12th-graders, smoking rates have fallen by nearly half. Only 11 percent of 12th-graders smoke every day.

It would be a good thing for adolescent health, of course, if none of them did. Maybe that will happen eventually, but banning sweet cigarettes isn't likely to speed the day.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/136363.html


The Truth: Not a Single Philip Morris or R.J. Reynolds Product Will Be Taken Off the Market Under Flavored Cigarettes Ban

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/anti-smoking-groups-are-full-of-baloney.html



Anti-Smoking Groups Called Out Publicly for Their Lies on Flavored Cigarette Ban
9/29/2009

The truth about the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is finally starting to reach the public, as people start to recognize that the law is laden with loopholes and that it accomplishes virtually nothing. This is becoming evident with the cigarette flavoring ban, which as Steve Chapman reveals in his Chicago Tribune column, affects not a single Big Tobacco cigarette brand. In this column, I suggest that the menthol exemption not only renders the law's flavoring ban meaningless but also represents a form of institutionalized racism by systematically and disproportionately compromising the health of African Americans as a bargaining chip to retain Philip Morris' support for the legislation. I opine that when all is said and done, the Act will go down as the most damaging piece of public health-related legislation ever, even worse than the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1970. The column appears on my tobacco policy blog today, at: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/anti-smoking-groups-called-out-publicly.html.

 

 

In a column published Sunday in the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman calls out the anti-smoking groups, federal spokespersons and politicians who have told the public that the flavored cigarette ban in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will break the cycle of addiction among youths and protect them from becoming prey to the tobacco industry's products.

Not so, argues Chapman. The flavored cigarette ban doesn't affect a single Big Tobacco product and affects less than 0.2% of the overall market, he notes, and therefore, it is deceptive, if not a lie, to tell the public that flavored cigarettes are a gateway to regular smoking (as the FDA Commissioner stated) and that the flavored cigarette ban will therefore break the cycle of addiction among youths.

Chapman argues: "At least since 1994, when seven tobacco executives testified before Congress that they didn't think cigarettes were addictive, the public has not put great trust in those who sell carcinogens for a living. What Americans may not realize is that they also shouldn't believe the people who are supposed to protect us from tobacco. When it comes to cigarettes, the federal government can blow smoke with the best of them."

"That became clear the other day, when the Food and Drug Administration announced it was prohibiting the sale of cigarettes with candy or fruit flavors. "These flavored cigarettes are a gateway for many children and young adults to become regular smokers," said Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. The ban, said Howard Koh, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, "will break that cycle [of addiction] for the more than 3,600 young people who start smoking daily."

"Sure it will. And I'm Megan Fox. When it comes to escorting kids into addiction, such cigarettes are more like the eye of a needle than a gateway. You would never know from the government's pronouncements that the nation's three major tobacco companies -- R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and Lorillard -- don't even make them. Notorious lines like Warm Winter Toffee and Winter Mocha Mint were removed from the market years ago. The only flavor the major producers use anymore is menthol, which happens to be one the FDA chose not to ban. Only a few small companies still offer the sort of flavors targeted by the government. According to one maker, Kretek International, these cigarettes account for less than two-tenths of 1 percent of all U.S. sales."

"When I asked an FDA spokesperson what portion of the cigarettes smoked by teens are flavored, she told me the agency doesn't know. So how does it know they serve as "a gateway for many children"? How does it know that banning them will have any effect on the number of new tobacco addicts? Actually, it doesn't. In any case, the number of kids using these products can't be very large. Michael Siegel, a physician and public health professor at Boston University, says that 87 percent of all high school smokers choose Marlboro, Camel or Newport, which don't come in tutti-frutti flavors. No surprise there. Siegel says that teenagers smoke because they want to seem older. But smoking something that tastes like bubble gum sends the opposite signal. Even when flavored cigarettes were more widely available, the great majority of adolescent smokers found them about as appealing as a Raffi concert."

The Rest of the Story

As I have long argued, the FDA tobacco law is a scam - designed to make it look like the health groups and federal government, along with Philip Morris, are doing something to protect kids from tobacco addiction when in fact the law does nothing of the sort. The flavored cigarette ban gets rid of a few minor brands which are hardly used by any youths, while exempting the one flavoring that is actually being used by millions of young people.

The rest of the story is that the health groups decided to sell out the health of African Americans by using menthol as a bargaining chip to secure Philip Morris' support for the legislation, which was deemed essential to the bill's passage. The menthol exemption was necessary because unlike the pineapple, banana, and cherry cigarettes which the law prohibits, people actually smoke menthol cigarettes so the financial interests of Big Tobacco depend on the continued sale of these products.

We wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Big Tobacco sales, would we? Especially when we now depend upon the continued sale of their products for fund health care for our nation's poor children. We wouldn't want to do anything that could actually make a significant dent in cigarette sales, would we? But as long as we can tell our constituents that we are winning the battle against Big Tobacco, we can collect our donations and fund ourselves, so what does it matter if we aren't actually protecting the public's health?

I'm glad that people are starting to take notice of this deception. Chapman's column will help educate the public about the truth behind the FDA tobacco law. Eventually, I believe it will be well-recognized that the FDA law surpasses the 1970 Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act as the worst public health legislation ever enacted by Congress.

 

 

Michael Siegel, MD, MPH

Professor

Department of Community Health Sciences

Boston University School of Public Health

801 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd Floor

Boston, MA 02118

617-638-5167

FAX 617-638-4483

Email: mbsiegel@bu.edu


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Undermines International Tobacco Control and Displays Blinding Hypocrisy


August 13, 2009 
By Michael Siegel

Upon the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' insistence and as a result of its vigorous lobbying, the United States has violated the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) treaty by granting the tobacco industry permanent membership on the scientific advisory panel that will help the FDA implement its tobacco regulations.

This violation was first reported by Glantz, Barnes, and Eubanks in their blistering
critique of the FDA tobacco legislation (see: Glantz SA, Barnes R, Eubanks SY. Compromise or capitulation? US Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction over tobacco products. PLoS Medicine 2009; 6(7):e1000118).

According to the FDA
legislation, the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee shall consist of two members of the tobacco industry, including one representative of the major tobacco companies and one representative of the smaller tobacco companies.

However,
Article 5.3 of the FCTC treaty states: "Parties should not allow any person employed by the tobacco industry or any entity working to further its interests to be a member of any government body, committee or advisory group that sets or implements tobacco control or public health policy."

The Rest of the Story

It is shameful that one of the nation's leading tobacco control groups has led the charge to put the U.S. in violation of the FCTC treaty.

The FDA has been accused of becoming increasingly politicized and losing its pure science focus. This action by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other anti-smoking groups makes the problem much worse, as it politicizes decisions regarding the most dangerous product that the FDA is being asked to regulate.

President Obama, in his inauguration speech, said that under his administration, we would "return science to its rightful place." Thanks to the anti-smoking groups which promoted this bill, the politicization of the FDA is institutionalized, rather than resolved.

Not only does the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' agreement to the tobacco industry representation on the advisory committee clause undermine the entire integrity of the FDA, but it also severely undermines the entire field of international tobacco control.

As Glantz et al. write: "The multinational tobacco companies will almost certainly use the precedent in the FDA bill to undermine implementation of the FCTC elsewhere, particularly since leading health advocates in the United States have been publicly defending this provision. Even though the US is not yet a party to the FCTC, US advocates must consider the global public health impacts of their actions here."

Nevertheless, as Arlo Guthrie once said, this is not what I've come to talk to you about. What I've come to talk about is hypocrisy.

Regardless of one's position on the FCTC treaty itself, we should all be able to agree that it would be blinding hypocrisy for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to insist that the U.S. violate the treaty - on the one hand - and for the Campaign to urge countries across the globe to sign, ratify, and implement the provisions of the treaty, on the other hand.

Yet that is precisely what the Campaign is doing.

The Campaign is waging an
initiative to urge countries around the world to ratify and implement the treaty. The Campaign even has an implementation guide on its web site, in which it declares that countries must follow Article 5.3, which is intended to "protect public health policies from tobacco industry influence."

Thus, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is full of hypocrisy. On the one hand they are telling other countries they must adhere to the FCTC treaty. On the other hand, they negotiated and supported legislation that puts the U.S. in violation of the treaty.

Thus, the rest of the story is that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids knowingly lobbied for a policy to put the U.S. in permanent violation of the FCTC treaty while at the same time demanding that other countries adhere to the policy.

That, my friends, is blinding hypocrisy.

 http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-violates-fctc-tobacco-control-treaty.html

 


Moving Towards Tobacco Prohibition

Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States.  It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry.  It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good.  Such is the condescension of Washington.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA.  It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment.  It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar.  The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products.  It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco.  As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit.  And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice.  The way to combat poor choices is through education and information.  Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people.  Regulations for children should be at the state level.  Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well.  We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.

Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs.  A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of marijuana.  Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path.  Instead of gaining more freedom with marijuana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco.  Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders.  How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers?

Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new.  It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then.  Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all.  Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it.  In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry.   One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill.

Posted by Ron Paul (06-15-2009, 01:32 PM)
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=090615_2978,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml


FDA Will Regulate Cigarettes ...
And Cause An Increase In Smoking!
 
(June 2009) - The Food & Drug Administration (FDA), a U.S. federal government agency, has been given the power by Congress to regulate cigarettes and smoking in the U.S.
 
This will affect a large number of Americans, Americans who smoke. According to a 2008 report from the Center For Disease Control (CDC) the number of smokers in America is 43.4 million.
 
Among other things, the FDA plans to force cigarette manufacturers to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. Nicotine is the addictive substance contained in cigarettes and, according to the government experts, reducing the amount of nicotine in cigarettes will reduce the addiction to cigarettes and make it easier for people to quit smoking. In reality, the opposite is true. If the nicotine level in cigarettes is reduced, smokers, in order to maintain the nicotine levels they are addicted to, will actually smoke MORE cigarettes. And, being forced to smoke more cigarettes, smokers will also inhale MORE of the dangerous and unhealthful chemicals in cigarettes - thus causing MORE smoking relating deaths and serious smoking related illnesses.
 
The real-world result of the government’s plan to reduce nicotine in cigarettes in order to reduce smoking and promote good health will have the exact opposite and even more harmful effect. Obviously, the health experts and government legislators who supported and passed this new FDA regulation of cigarettes must be non-smokers, know nothing about the smoking experience and are, in fact, seriously ignorant in not realizing that their “let’s regulate cigarettes and reduce nicotine content to reduce smoking” idea would have the opposite effect and cause smokers to smoke MORE.
 
It’s a pity Congress didn’t bother to ask actual smokers about the real-world consequences of this ill-advised, and harmful, anti-smoking legislation … BEFORE they passed it into law!
 
Andrew Lawrence is an expert smoker with decades of actual experience. He is also  the author of 5 books including “Glimmers Of Hope”, a forecast of the future, which is available nationwide at Amazon.com.


Tobacco Control and Thought Control
Steve Chapman
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The great judge Learned Hand once said, "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." If so, the tobacco regulation bill recently passed by Congress indicates that the spirit of liberty is even scarcer than usual in the halls of government.
What motivates advocates of stricter tobacco regulation is the unassailable assurance that they are not only completely right but that their opponents are a) wrong and b) evil. This invigorating certitude makes it possible to justify almost anything that punishes cigarette companies, even if it does no actual good -- or does actual harm.
One of the main purposes of the new law is to reduce the number of smokers in the name of improving "public health." This is a skillful use of language to confuse rather than enlighten.
An individual decision to take up cigarettes is a private event, not a public one, and its health effects are almost entirely confined to the individual making the choice. Swine flu warrants government intervention because it is transmitted to people without their consent. Not so with tobacco addiction.
That's not the only Orwellian touch in this measure. It is called the "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act," which raises the obvious question: What does "family" have to do with it? Answer: nothing, but doesn't it sound sweet?
Like many intrusive government actions, this law is supposed to protect children. That's the pretext for telling tobacco companies, in exhaustive detail, how and where they can communicate with consumers, actual and potential -- allegedly to prevent the contamination of young minds.
So: Cigarette makers are forbidden to use color in ads in any publication whose readership is less than 85 percent adult. They are barred from using music in audio ads. They are not allowed to use pictures in video ads. They may not put product names on race cars, lighters, caps or T-shirts. From all this, you almost forget the fleeting passage in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech."
When it gets in a mood to regulate, Congress doesn't like to trouble itself with nuisances like the First Amendment. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for Massachusetts to ban outdoor ads within 1,000 feet of any schools and playgrounds. So what does this law do? It bans outdoor ads within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.
The court said the Massachusetts law was intolerable because it choked off communication about a legal activity. "In some geographical areas," complained Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "these regulations would constitute nearly a complete ban on the communication of truthful information about smokeless tobacco and cigars to adult consumers."
But to anti-smoking zealots, that effect is not a bug but a feature. The only problem they have with imposing "nearly a complete ban" is the "nearly" part.
The crackdown on magazine ads is supposed to foil a dastardly plot to enslave middle-schoolers to lifelong nicotine addiction. In the 1998 legal settlement between states and the tobacco industry, cigarette makers agreed not to target adolescents in their advertising. But since then, reports the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, tobacco companies have sharply increased outlays on marketing efforts "that reach and influence kids."
If the point was to recruit new smokers, they've wasted their money. Students in middle school and high school are 44 percent less likely to try cigarettes today than they were in 1998. Only 6.4 percent of teens smoke every day, less than half as many as before.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says "cigarettes that are the most popular among kids are those that are also heavily advertised." But that doesn't prove advertising causes teens to take up the habit. It only indicates advertising may affect the brand preference of those who already smoke.
Corporate marketing doesn't explain very much about teen substance abuse. There are as many kids who use marijuana once a month or more as there are who smoke cigarettes that often. When was the last time you saw an ad for cannabis?
Punishing tobacco companies, which provide a legal product that consumers want, may not achieve anything in terms of reducing teen smoking or improving health. But in that case, sponsors may take satisfaction in the sheer pleasure of inflicting that punishment. Rest assured, they will.
http://townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2009/06/21/tobacco_control_and_thought_control?page=full&comments=true


More Smoke and Mirrors

June 15, 2009

On June 11, 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, was approved by the US Senate. The legislation effectively places tobacco under control of US FDA (Food and Drug Administration). A similar bill was passed in the House of Representatives last year. All that remains is for Congress to merge the two pieces of legislation and have it ratified by President Barack Obama.

The general consensus is that the legislation could turn out to be the nail in the coffin of the tobacco industry. The reality may be something else.

The bill gives the FDA the authority to limit advertising, require a more prominent display of health warnings on cigarette packs, reduce, but not eliminate nicotine content in cigarettes, and initiate a host of other regulatory measures designed to control the industry. Senator Ted Kennedy, a co-sponsor of the bill, claims that: “FDA action can play a major role in breaking the gruesome cycle that seduces millions of teenagers into a lifetime of addiction and premature death.”

But, although both the House and the Senate approved the bill by overwhelming majorities, not everyone is convinced that the legislation will have the desired effect of controlling the tobacco industry and reducing smoking prevalence.

Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health has opposed the bill from the start. He notes that the FDA will not be able to eliminate the addictive substance (nicotine) from cigarettes. They can only reduce the amount of nicotine which will, in turn, force people to smoke more to satisfy their addiction.

Say Siegel: “ . . . it is inexcusable - in my view - for a politician to support such a bill and then to have the political gall to get up in front of the American people and tell them that he has done something to protect future generations of children from addiction and to help millions of smokers to quit.”

Siegel has written a number of articles on his blog, Tobacco Analysis , pointing out what he believes are the shortcomings of the bill. He appears to be especially outraged by the fact that the bill was a collaborative effort by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and Philip Morris, the leading cigarette manufacturer in the US.

In one article, he suggests that Philip Morris hoodwinked the politicians and the anti-smoker cartel supporting the bill to the detriment of public health. Siegel may well be right in that the bill mayl not benefit public health. But, whether anyone was hoodwinked, except maybe the public, is debatable.

Anti-smoker advocates claim there are roughly 450,000 deaths annually attributable to smoking in the US alone. Yet, the strongest response to these alleged smoking deaths is to increase already punitive taxes on tobacco, impose draconian smoking bans and generally make the lives of smokers miserable.

In contrast, the World Health Organization recently declared Swine Flu a pandemic. The world's death toll is roughly 100 from the virus that has sickened some 12,000 people.

The facts? In 1998, an agreement was hammered out between state attorneys-general and the tobacco companies. The tobacco industry agreed to pay roughly 250 billion dollars over 25 years to compensate state governments for the health care costs allegedly resulting from cigarette smoking. The payments are directly dependent on cigarette sales and the cost was passed on to tobacco consumers, meaning the agreement cost the tobacco companies nothing.

Other than the states who used the money to build roads, bridges and golf courses, the biggest beneficiaries were the anti-smoker groups who receive huge sums of money to sustain a de-normalization campaign against smokers.

More recently, President Barack Obama expanded a children’s health care initiative called SCHIP. The expanded program is expected to cost an additional 33 billion dollars annually. And the federal government is to fund it with an increase in tobacco taxes which has already taken effect.

Governments at both the state and federal level have, over the past decade, made themselves dependent on the tobacco industry for tens of billions of dollars annually in tobacco taxation. So, it should come as no surprise that there are many who believe the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is simply so much window dressing.

The truth is, if smokers are addicted to tobacco, then governments are addicted to the revenue generated by tobacco taxation. But, could that addiction be strong enough for government to overlook the immense harm allegedly caused by smoking? Could any government really be that callous and irresponsible?

In the smoke and mirrors world of big government, the FDA legislation is unlikely to have any real impact on tobacco sales or consumption. That’s simply not in the best economic interests of the government. But the public perception is that the FDA legislation is a heavy-duty weapon in the undeclared war on smokers.

As Siegel said in one article, “All that matters is what the public thinks the bill will do. It's about political propaganda, not about a true concern for the protection of the public's health.”

But, I think he’s wrong in believing that Philip Morris conned both the government and the anti-smoker groups who supported the bill. I suspect all three factions bear equal responsibility for the perpetration of what appears to be a fraud on the American people.
http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2009/06/more-smoke-and-mirrors.html


Michael Siegel Updates:

Constitutionality of FDA Tobacco Legislation is Already Being Challenged; First Amendment Lawsuit Almost Certain
This commentary explains how the health groups have deceived their constituents (us) and the public by failing to tell the truth about the advertising restrictions in the legislation. These restrictions are going to be challenged on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment and the Supreme Court has already struck down Massachusetts regulations that were virtually identical to some provisions in the FDA bill. Moreover, the bill's restriction of the companies' ability to make truthful statements about the regulation of tobacco products is not only unconstitutional, but also reveals the truth: that this is a public scam
-- the health groups don't even believe the propaganda that they are spewing to the public!
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/constitutionality-of-fda-tobacco.html.
 

Newspaper Columns Call FDA Legislation What It Really Is: A Scam
Three more newspaper columns have exposed that the FDA tobacco legislation is actually a public scam in which politicians and health groups pat themselves on the back for taking on Big Tobacco when in reality, they have granted unprecedented special protections to the industry and failed to take the meaningful action that would actually make a dent in cigarette smoking rates.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/newspaper-columns-call-fda-legislation.html


The Next Fallout from FDA Tobacco Legislation: Virtual Immunity for Big Tobacco
This commentary reveals the next devastating ramification of the FDA tobacco legislation: its chilling effect on tobacco litigation and the ability of plaintiffs to receive punitive damages. Lawyers USA has written a column which exposes this severe problem.
I find it quite unfortunate that a "real" discussion of the bill's merits and weaknesses is occurring only AFTER it has already passed.
This is what happens when the organization leading the campaign refuses to engage in actual discussion about the bill, rather than simply running a propaganda campaign in support of a deal that it had already signed off on. I maintain that this is no way to formulate public policy.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/next-fallout-from-fda-tobacco.html


FDA Tobacco Bill Itself Admits that It is a Scam
This commentary exposes the strange truth that the FDA bill itself acknowledges that it is a scam: the bill's supporters have publicly told us that the bill is going to create safer cigarettes by removing or reducing the levels of various toxic constituents, but in the bill itself, they admit that FDA regulation will not create a safer product and that anyone who implies such is misleading the American public (and thus, need to be prohibited from even telling the public that the FDA regulates cigarettes). Unless, of course, its the health groups who are the ones deceiving the public.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/fda-tobacco-bill-itself-admits-that-it.html


The Ultimate Insanity: Health Groups Want to Remove Some Toxins from Cigarettes, But Want to Ban Product Which Already Removed Virtually All of Them
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association have supported the legislation, about to be enacted, which asks the FDA to make cigarettes safer by removing certain of the more than 4,000 known constituents in the tobacco smoke.
At the same time, these groups have asked the FDA to ban a product (electronic cigarettes) which has already been developed and which already has eliminated all of the 4,000 known constituents in tobacco smoke, other than the nicotine.
I can't help it, but this is the ultimate in insanity.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/ultimate-insanity-health-groups-want-to.html

Senator Kennedy's Statement Shows that the Chief Author of the FDA Legislation Has Crafted a Complete Scam on the American People
Interestingly, the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin has seen through the smokescreen and called it as it truly is, editorializing about the legislation: "It gives the impression Congress is taking a tough stand to protect smokers. It won't. It will create a mess.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/senator-kennedys-statement-shows-that.html

A Tremendous Victory for Philip Morris and for Big Tobacco
First, yet another source has confirmed the role of Philip Morris in helping to craft the legislation. It now seems quite clear that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has deceived other anti-smoking groups, its consitituents, and the American public about this point, and that it continues to deceive the public.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-comment-on-cbs-evening-news-story-on.html


On the wire...
Senate votes to give FDA power to regulate tobacco
By JIM ABRAMS
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 11, 2009; 2:55 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Senate has voted to give the government extensive new powers to decide how tobacco companies will make and MARKET their products. Supporters say that could spare millions from smoking addiction and premature death.
The legislation would for the first time give the Food and Drug Administration legal authority to regulate and order changes to tobacco products in the interest of public health. Thursday's vote was 79-17.
FDA authority over tobacco has long been a goal of anti-smoking advocates who say it could reduce an annual toll of 400,000 tobacco-related deaths. The House has passed its own similar version, and a resolution of differences would send it to President Barack Obama, who supports it.


Senate Votes to Give Federal Seal of Approval to Cigarettes and Provide Unprecedented Special Protections to Big Tobacco

June 11, 2009
By Michael Siegel

On a 79-17 vote taken moments ago, the United States Senate approved the FDA tobacco legislation that was crafted by Philip Morris and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids through a Congressionally-mediated negotiation. It will almost certainly be signed by President Obama into law, although some minor differences between the Senate and House versions still need to be worked out.

The bill give unprecedented special protections to Big Tobacco, tying the FDA's hands in the most important areas in which it could actually act to make a dent in smoking rates and product safety, and allowing it only to take actions that will have little to no impact.

For example, the legislation allows the FDA to reduce the levels of nicotine in cigarettes, but not to eliminate the nicotine. Reducing nicotine levels will only lead to smokers smoking more to obtain the same nicotine dose. They will inhale more tar and thus suffer greater health damage.

Another example: all flavorings in cigarettes - such as chocolate, strawberry, banana, pineapple, and cherry - are banned. These flavors are hardly ever used in cigarettes. However, menthol - the one flavoring that is actually used to help entice and addict literally millions of smokers - is exempt from the ban.

The legislation allows the FDA to put minor restrictions on cigarette advertising, yet the agency is precluded from taking the two actions that might actually help keep cigarettes out of the hands of our nation's children: increasing the age of sale of tobacco and restricting the places where tobacco is sold.

The bill will require the cigarette companies to disclose the ingredients and constituents of cigarettes and tobacco smoke. As if that is really going to make a difference in people's decisions about smoking. Moreover, the majority of constituents of tobacco smoke are unknown, so it's not like the public will now understand exactly what they are inhaling.

While existing cigarettes will be grandfathered into the market, new products will find it almost impossible to enter the market. And while truly safer cigarettes will have no chance of competing in the marketplace because there is no chance of their being successfully marketed, reduced exposure cigarettes which may not actually reduce disease rates will suddenly find it possible to enter the market, opening up the tobacco market for the first time in decades.

Worst of all, the legislation will give an FDA seal of approval to cigarettes, undermining decades of efforts to educate the public about the severe hazards of smoking. It will create the perception that cigarettes are safer, when in fact, they will be no safer and will still be killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. But now, they will be doing so with the blessing of the United States government.

The federal government will now be a willing partner - knowingly complicit - in the tobacco epidemic.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/senate-votes-to-give-federal-seal-of.html.


Dems: Hey, let’s take over tobacco industry! Obama: Great idea!
June 2, 2009
By Michelle Malkin
Banks? Check.
Auto industry? Check.
Housing market? Check.
Health care? Getting there.
Tobacco? Why the hell not?
The Senate took a step Tuesday toward giving the government some controls over the tobacco industry, bolstering the chances that a long-sought goal of anti-smoking advocates will finally be realized.
The 84-11 Senate vote to consider the bill came a month after the House overwhelmingly passed a similar measure giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Sixty votes were needed to advance the legislation, and the success in reaching that threshold increase the likelihood that the Senate will move to a final vote by the end of the week. If the House concurs with the Senate measure, it would go to President Barack Obama, who is ready to sign it into law.
The Senate vote came on a day when Obama is to meet Senate Democratic leaders on courses they may take to bring down the runaway costs of health care.
Supporters of the FDA legislation, such as the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association, say controls over tobacco products would be a good place to start: they say tobacco use kills more than 400,000 Americans every year, resulting in $96 billion in health care costs.
Under the measure, the FDA could restrict tobacco marketing, specifically to young people; order changes to the ingredients in tobacco products; and require more prominent health warnings. It would ban remaining tobacco-brand sponsorships of sports and entertainment events and restrict vending machines to adult-only facilities. It would bar the use of “reduced harm” descriptions such as “light,” “mild” or “low.”
It would impose a fee on cigarette manufacturers to pay for FDA regulation.
The FDA would not have the authority to ban cigarettes and other tobacco products.
“The FDA would not have the authority to ban cigarettes and other tobacco products.” Well, of course not, silly. They need the taxes to pay for S-CHIP, Obamacare, etc., etc., etc.
***
I particularly like this detail: “Under the measure, the FDA could…order changes to the ingredients in tobacco products.”
Dried arugula flakes?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/02/dems-hey-lets-take-over-tobacco-industry-obama-great-idea/


Fitch Ratings Predicts that FDA Legislation Will "Revitalize" the Tobacco Industry: Is This the Best that Our Health Groups Can Do?
June 11, 2009
By Michael Siegel
In this commentary, I dissect the FDA tobacco bill and explain why it is that the legislation will revitalize the tobacco industry, as Fitch Ratings predicts in its most recent analysis. That the health groups are behind this effort to revitalize the industry is a travesty.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/fitch-ratings.html


Burr, Hagan join to fight tobacco bill
In a first, N.C. senators team up to oppose a bill that would ‘further devastate' the state.
By Barbara Barrett, Washington correspondent
May. 20, 2009
WASHINGTON U.S. senators began debate Tuesday on legislation that would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes, an idea that has the strong backing of public health advocates across the country.
Standing in their way were the two senators from North Carolina. Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Kay Hagan teamed up for the first significant issue in their short time together in the Senate, offering arguments to weaken a popular bill that, they fear, could decimate a historic industry in their state.
North Carolina is the nation's top producer of tobacco, growing $686 million worth of leaf last year on 12,000 farms. The state's tobacco manufacturers, from the behemoth R.J. Reynolds to boutique companies, put 10,000 people to work.
The economic impact, Hagan told committee members, amounts to $7 billion.
“The bill before us today is going to further devastate the economy in North Carolina and put thousands of people out of work,” she said.
The effort to protect tobacco came, coincidentally, on the same day that Gov. Bev Perdue signed into law a sweeping ban on smoking in most bars and restaurants in the state. Perdue, a Democrat, signed the bill in the old House chamber in the state Capitol as more than 125 state lawmakers and others cheered.
Perdue called it “an absolutely historic day for this great state that was built initially on the backbone of tobacco.”
The smoking ban takes effect in January and applies to the inside portions of nearly all bars and restaurants. There are narrow exceptions for cigar bars, and private clubs such as country clubs and VFW halls.
In Washington, Tuesday marked the first meeting of the Senate health committee to discuss details of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, championed by Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Committee discussion will continue today and possibly into Thursday. From there, the bill goes to the Senate floor.
The bill could have a sweeping impact on tobacco companies and the marketing of their products. One of every five Americans uses tobacco, and smoking-related diseases kill nearly half a million a year, more than any other preventable cause of death.
The bill would require companies to register their products and ingredient breakdowns with the FDA. It would allow the agency to limit the amount of harmful products, though not wipe out entirely addictive ingredients such as nicotine.
It also aims to reduce childhood smoking by banning candy-flavored tobacco products, ending advertising near schools and playgrounds, sending vending machines to adult-only establishments and plastering larger warnings across packs of tobacco.
“From a moral sense, I don't understand people who manufacture products which kill people,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent.
Today Burr may put forward his own alternative bill, co-sponsored by Hagan, that would create a new agency for tobacco regulation but without many of the restrictions in the Kennedy bill. Hagan offered two amendments to Kennedy's bill. The first would keep the FDA from forcing manufacturers to make changes that might affect leaf growers. The second would clarify that the FDA cannot directly or indirectly regulate tobacco growers or the leaf itself.
Both brought a flurry of opposition, and she withdrew them before the committee could vote.
After the meeting, Hagan circled the table and leaned over to speak into Burr's ear about the amendments.
She may bring them back up, she said afterward. “We'll wait to see.” Benjamin Niolet contributed.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/734451.html


100 Days Later, Nation Waits for FDA Overhaul
Agency is so understaffed, it inspects less than 1 percent of imported food
April 26th, 2009
by Tom Costello
 
The Food and Drug Administration may be the only federal agency that both political parties agree is in desperate need of an overhaul.
The FDA is so understaffed it inspects less than 1 percent of imported food.
 
President Barack Obama is promising action, though progress has been slow in the first 100 days. His choice to head the FDA - Dr. Margaret Hamburg - still has not been confirmed by congress.
Assuming Hamburg is confirmed, she will head an agency whose own Science Board concluded more than two years ago "is at risk of failing to carry out its mandate, leaving our citizens at risk of grievous harm."
The FDA is responsible for overseeing the safety of the nation's foods, drugs, medical devices and consumer products. In each of those areas, the agency is widely regarded as having fallen down on the job.
But its biggest black eye comes from the way the agency has handled its food safety responsibilities.
Safety of the food supply The president has promised to act quickly to ensure the safety of the nation's food supply, following the most recent salmonella outbreak involving peanut butter that has sickened nearly 500 people and killed 10.
That outbreak follows others involving baby formula, pet food, spinach, jalapenos, cooked ham, anchovies - and the list goes on.
After pointing out that America's food safety laws have not been updated since they were written during Teddy Roosevelt's administration, the president announced the creation of a new "Food Safety Working Group." The group's mission is to determine how our food safety laws need to be overhauled.
During an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer on the Today Show, Obama said "at a bare minimum, we should be able to count on our government keeping our kids safe when they eat peanut butter."
"That's what Sasha eats for lunch," he added, referring to his daughter.
Among the FDA's handicaps is enforcing food safety; it does not have the authority to order a recall on its own. It relies on the cooperation of food providers to voluntarily recall products.
Complicating efforts, the FDA is not alone in policing food safety. Even though the FDA is responsible for 75 percent of the food supply, the USDA actually gets 80 percent of the food safety funding, though its responsibilities are limited to meat and poultry.
Marion Nestle, the author of "Safe Food" and a professor of food studies and public health at New York University, writes in the San Francisco Chronicle "this weird division of responsibility began in 1906, and it's breathtaking in its irrationality. The FDA oversees the safety of cheese pizza; the USDA oversees pepperoni pizza."
Meanwhile, the FDA is so understaffed, it's only able to inspect roughly 1 percent of foods that are imported into the country. And the rate of inspections at U.S. plants isn't much better. The FDA had not inspected Peanut Corporation of America's Georgia plant since 2001. Investigators say PCA's own internal tests repeatedly found salmonella traces, but it continued to sell peanut butter products.
The Obama administration has already signaled that it intends to streamline the entire food safety process.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak told NBC News in February that "we need to figure out how to coordinate what FDA does and USDA does and ultimately merge those entities into a single food agency that would be responsible for all food products so that there's no possibility of something falling through the cracks."
Don't be surprised if a central theme in the president's Food Safety Working Group includes merging the responsibilities of the USDA and FDA into a single agency.
However, experts also suggest food safety will not improve unless cities and states also improve their food safety procedures.
A stronger FDA Look for Obama to increase oversight of imports and closer inspection of domestic food production as well, though it's unlikely a new food safety agency would have the manpower necessary to inspect every import and every U.S. plant involved in food or drug manufacturing.
The FDA's own Science Board notes "there are 375,000 establishments making FDA-regulated products."
"In just a decade, there has been a ten-fold increase in imports, coming from more than 100 other countries. Over 50 percent of drugs are imported, along with 15 percent of our food supply," according to the report.
Former FDA Associate Commissioner William Hubbard told NBC News "I think the agency is at a tipping point. If change doesn't come in terms of new management and resources, they could be a failed institution."
While former President George W. Bush preferred a market-based approach to food and drug safety, Democrats in Congress are already moving toward giving the FDA more power.
The House passed a bill on April 2 that would give the FDA the power to change the ingredients in cigarettes and mandate new warning labels. However, the bill stops short of giving the FDA the authority to ban tobacco products or nicotine. A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate.
Tobacco is considered a leading cause of preventable deaths in America, killing more than 400,000 people each year. Yet until now, tobacco products have been among the least-regulated products in the nation. Even Obama has been trying to wean himself off the habit.
Assuming she is confirmed by the Senate, Hamburg will have her hands full when she takes over as FDA Commissioner.
Her track record suggests she's up for the challenge. Her resume includes stints as the senior scientist for the Nuclear Threat Initiative where she also served as vice president of biological programs; assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services; New York City health commissioner.
She's also held positions with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at HHS.
The White House's priorities, and her own, will likely be revealed during her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
Read
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/26-1#comment-1189788
 
Response:
 
So Obama promises not to raise tax on anyone under $250,000 and then glowingly signs a 2,000% tax increase on one of the poorest well-defined minority groups in the country, those forced to roll their own cigarettes from shreds of loose tobacco and scraps of paper.
He goes on to hire William Corr, one of the most well-established antismoking lobbyists in the country into his "no lobbyist" administration.
And he then pushes to take an FDA that can barely inspect 1% of our imported food products and give it a whole NEW job of having to be responsible for overseeing a hundred billion cigarettes being sold here every year.
Who's going to take the blame when the tobacco black market sends us back to the days of Al Capone with a nasty Bin Ladin element added, when the lobbyists are exposed as corrupt and in bed with the NicoGummyPatchyProductPeople at Big Pharma, and when the overstretched FDA results in thousands of deaths and illnesses from school lunches?
The antismoking movement may end up doing more to destroy Obama's presidency than the trillion dollar bailouts. Sad.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN) http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com


Bill Would Add Auto-Enrollment Feature to TSP
Rebecca Moore
03/13/2009
Legislative changes to the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) are tacked onto a U.S. House bill aimed at regulating tobacco products.
A news report on FedSmith.com said the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (HR 1256) would provide for automatic enrollment in the TSP, with employees able to opt out of participating. The bill also directs the TSP to provide for qualified Roth 401(k) contributions.
According to the news report, the bill would give the TSP the option of setting up a "self-directed investment window," with restrictions limiting these investment options to:
low-cost, passively managed index funds that offer diversification benefits
other investment options, if the board determines the options to be appropriate retirement investment vehicles for participants.
The changes were first recommended in the House in May (see “House Panel OKs Auto Enrolling New Fed Workers”). The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee previously approved the addition of the automatic enrollment feature (see “Legislation Targets Employers Without Retirement Plans”).
FedSmith.com also reported that other legislation tacked on to the tobacco measure would provide for unused sick leave to be counted toward the computation of the retirement benefits for federal employees under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) as it is for employees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
http://www.planadviser.com/compliance/article.php/3909


Major Section of FDA Tobacco Legislation is Blatantly Unconstitutional and Will Be Struck Down; Bill Will Give FDA Seal of Approval to Cigarettes.

Fine Print in FDA Legislation Shows that Supporters Know It Will Not Protect the Public's Health: Legislation is a Complete Scam


New Study Shows that De-Nicotinized Cigarettes Deliver Substantial Nicotine to the Brain; Claims that FDA Bill Will End Addiction are Unfounded

This new study is one which the major anti-smoking groups which are supporting the FDA legislation do not want you to know about: it provides evidence that the FDA legislation has been poisoned by Philip Morris protection clauses which will institutionalize, rather than end addiction to cigarettes.
 
This is the last thing in the world that tobacco control and public health advocates should be supporting.
 
As I conclude in this commentary: "Indeed, it [passage of the FDA legislation] will be a pyrrhic victory. It will inflict severe (in fact, irreparable) damage on the tobacco control movement and on the public's health. It will do very little to address the problem of addiction or of the hazards of cigarette smoking, yet it will increase cigarette consumption by giving the product a government stamp of approval, institutionalize the fraud and deception of the American consumer, and grant virtual immunity to the tobacco industry."

"While the anti-smoking groups could give the legislation some small chance of achieving a more favorable outcome by demanding that the Philip Morris nicotine protection clause be removed from the bill, they have adamantly refused to do so. Instead, they are protecting the right of Big Tobacco to continue to addict millions of our children and to do so with the approval and blessing of the federal government."

The commentary appears on my tobacco policy blog, at: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com.
Michael Siegel, MD, MPH


FDA Regulation of Tobacco

To the Editor: In 1998, Mark Berlind, chief legislative counsel of Philip Morris, drafted specifications for regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would ensure the continuing profitability of the Marlboro brand, provide a shield against litigation, and protect cigarettes from competition from less-toxic, smokeless tobacco products.1 The current Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1108/S. 625) discussed by Brandt in his Perspective article (July 31 issue)2 was negotiated between Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Mr. Berlind3 for purposes of securing an FDA bill with full support from our nation's largest cigarette maker. The text conforms to Mr. Berlind's 1998 specifications.

Despite the optimistic wording of the summaries used to attract endorsement and sponsors, we believe that this bill is so distorted in favor of Altria–Philip Morris that, if passed in its current form, it will do more harm than good in terms of future levels of teen smoking and future rates of tobacco-related illness and death. It can protect cigarettes or it can protect the public's health. It cannot do both.

Joel L. Nitzkin, M.D., M.P.H.
American Association of Public Health Physicians
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-1842
jln-md@mindspring.com

The New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 359:2070-2071 
November 6, 2008
Number 19
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/19/2070-a 



Anti-Smoking Advocates Re-Writing History to Support FDA Tobacco Legislation
November 6, 2008
By Michael Siegel
Ironically, this doesn't say a lot for a movement that is trying to distinguish itself from an industry that we continually attack for dishonesty. If the movement isn't honest itself, how can it expect to hold the higher ground against the industry?
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/11/anti-smoking-advocates-re-writing.html


Congressional "Leaders" on Tobacco Issue and Leading Anti-Smoking Groups Devoid of Integrity; Money, Not Public Health, is Paramount Concern
September 2, 2008
By Michael Siegel
If the debate over the FDA tobacco legislation during the 110th Congress has taught us anything, it is that for both Congressional anti-tobacco "leaders" and the leading national anti-smoking organizations, money and politics are more important than protecting the public's health. While this may not be a revelation as it applies to political leaders and is perhaps to be expected, it is not expected, nor excusable, among public health leaders.
Read More:  http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/09/congressional-leaders-on-tobacco-issue.html


Docket  FDA-2008-P-0116 
Docket Title  Requesting expansion of availability of nicotine replacement therapy to consumers who use tobacco 
Docket Type  Nonrulemaking 
Document  FDA-2008-P-0116-0001 
Document Title  State of New York Department of Health - Citizen Petition 
Public Submission  FDA-2008-P-0116-0040 
Public Submission Title  Jeremy Richards 
August 25, 2008

Cold Turkey has always been the best way to quit smoking. NRT is very
ineffective. The American Cancer Society's 2003 Cancer Facts and Figures report
asserts that 91.4% of all successful long-term quitters quit entirely on their own.
A 2006 Australian study found that 88% of all successful quitters quit smoking
cold turkey and that cold turkey quitters were twice as likely to succeed as those
using the nicotine patch, nicotine gum, nicotine inhaler or Zyban (bupropion).

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/LinksCAids.html

The loosening of regulations on the places and means in which NRT is sold is just
an excuse for the pharmaceutical companies to expand their market share of an
ineffective and costly product.

Jeremy Richards, Ph.D.
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FDA-2008-P-0116



House Bill HR-1108
FDA Regulation of Tobacco
AKA: Screw the Smoker, Give Philip Morris and Big Pharma Market Advantage, and set the stage for Prohibition.
http://www.smokerpower.info/FDA_Regulation.html

The Truth is Revealed: Philip Morris Helped Draft FDA Tobacco Legislation and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Negotiated Bill with Philip Morris
8/11/08 By Michael Siegel
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/truth-is-revealed-philip-morris-helped.html


Loophole in tobacco regulation bill
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
August 7, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A loophole in a sweeping tobacco regulation bill would give the industry a 21-month window to introduce certain new products without first getting federal approval.
The House last month overwhelmingly passed the legislation, which for the first time would empower federal public health authorities to regulate tobacco. Some tobacco foes say the bill's 21-month escape clause would let companies start marketing cigarettes and other products in the development pipeline before the Food and Drug Administration has fully ramped up to regulate them.
"It is an opportunity for the companies to continue to put products on the market without a pre-market evaluation by the FDA," said Mitch Zeller, who headed the agency's tobacco office during the Clinton administration. That office was disbanded after the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the FDA did not have authority to regulate tobacco, a decision that provided the motivation for the current bill.
Zeller, who said he still counts himself as a strong supporter of the legislation, nonetheless called the loophole "unfortunate" and said it seems to be a "gift" to the tobacco companies.
The office of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who is one of the main authors of the bill, disagreed. The provision is in the bill to give the FDA some breathing room to set up its new tobacco division, and not as a favor to the industry, according to Kennedy's staff.
The legislation represents a compromise among major anti-smoking groups and some tobacco companies, including Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest. The bill has the support of a majority of senators, but it's unclear whether it will become law this year because the Bush administration has threatened a veto.
The controversial clause would not apply to all new products, only to those that are similar -- or "substantially equivalent" -- to ones that were on the market when the bill was introduced in 2007.
Under the provision, tobacco companies would be able to begin selling a new product provided they file a report with the FDA showing why the new product is similar to an existing one. That could be done at any time in the 21 months after enactment of the legislation. If the FDA later disagreed, it still would have the power to yank the product off the market.
After the 21 months, winning FDA approval for any product would get tougher.
Once the window closes, products similar to ones already on the market would have to first be cleared by the FDA before they could be sold to consumers.
Completely new products would face a higher hurdle from the time the bill is enacted. Companies would have to apply to the FDA before going to market, and the agency could deny approval if it finds that a product is not "appropriate for the protection of the public health" -- a standard that may be difficult for cigarettes to meet.
A spokesman for Philip Morris said the language in the bill speaks for itself and the company would have no further comment. But Kevin Altman, a consultant to small tobacco companies, said the 21-month window gives the industry some security as it prepares for a new world of closer oversight.
"Here was our concern. Let's say I launch a product today (that's) a straight-up-the-gut traditional cigarette," Altman explained. "The big fear was you go out there and the FDA comes out with regulations and says, 'Oh, that's not a registered product. You have to take it off the market.'"
Some companies launch different versions of essentially the same cigarette to try to expand their market, Altman said. He predicted that companies with brands under development, or those that are considering new versions of current products, would scramble to introduce them within the 21-month window.
Small cigarette companies were also able to get an expansion of the loophole in negotiations with Congress, Altman added.
When the legislation was introduced last year, it provided that only products similar to ones introduced by mid-2003 could be marketed without prior approval from the FDA during the initial time window.
But the bill passed by the House expanded that to include products similar to ones introduced by February 2007, a gain of more than three years.
Kennedy's office said changes in the effective dates of various legislative provisions are routine in drafting major bills, and that some were recommended by former senior FDA officials.
But Zeller, the former tobacco office chief who is critical of the loophole, commented, "They didn't ask me."
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/august/0807_tobaccop.shtml
 


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Still Hiding the Truth About FDA Tobacco Legislation; Honesty is Just Not Possible from this Organization

August 6, 2008
By Michael Siegel

In an email sent to its constituents this morning, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids once again deceived them by distorting the truth. In the email, the Campaign implied that Big Tobacco (which includes Philip Morris) is opposed to the FDA tobacco legislation and is using its massive lobbying resources to oppose the bill. This is dishonest, as the truth is that Philip Morris strongly supports the bill and is using its massive lobbying resources to promote passage of the legislation.

The email states: "As you know, last Wednesday the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1108 with overwhelming support. Your Representative, X, voted YES to grant the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products! Click here to say thank you! Tobacco companies spent a lot of time and money trying to persuade members of Congress to protect their profits, but Representative X had the courage to do what was right."

The Rest of the Story

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is being dishonest, and it knows it. It is not truthful to state that the tobacco companies spent a lot of time and money trying to persuade members of Congress to protect their profits by voting against the legislation. The truth is that Philip Morris - the largest tobacco company by far (it holds half of all domestic cigarette market share) - spent a lot of time and money trying to persuade members of Congress to support the legislation.

Regardless of how one feels about the merits of the FDA tobacco legislation, I would hope that we could all agree that public health groups should not be telling untruths to the public in order to promote their position on the legislation.

Ironically, one of the primary purposes of the legislation - as acknowledged by the Campaign itself - is to end the dishonesty and deception by the tobacco companies. The tactic that the Campaign is using to end this dishonesty and deception is to run a campaign of dishonesty and deception.

The unethical behavior of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids just never ceases. I'm beginning to think that this organization is not capable of being honest.

It's a shame, because it really taints the honesty and integrity of the entire tobacco control movement.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/campaign-for-tobacco-free-kids-still.html


Tobacco Regulation – A Step Forward to a Healthier Nation
By Anna Boyd
August 4th 2008
In an attempt to lower the number of people becoming addicted of cigarettes and also that of the people dying because smoking-related disease, the House of Representatives voted last Wednesday in favor of a bill that would give the US Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products and to treat tobacco manufacturers similar to drug manufacturers.
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Tobacco_Regulation_A_Step_Forward_to_a_Healthier_Nation_21477.html


House passes bill to regulate tobacco
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, AP
731/08
WASHINGTON -The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being.
Its backers call the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act "landmark" legislation. While the bill appears to have enough support to pass this year, it's unclear whether the Senate will have time to act, and the Bush administration issued a veto threat Wednesday.
The 326-102 House vote signaled solid bipartisan support for the measure, with 96 Republicans breaking with President Bush's position to vote in favor of the bill. Both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., back the legislation.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., worked for more than a decade to get the House to pass tobacco regulation.
"This is truly a historic day in the fight against tobacco," Waxman said. "But it took us far too long to get here."
The bill would further tighten restrictions on tobacco advertising and impose new federal penalties for selling to minors. But its most far-reaching provisions would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco, from cigarettes to new kinds of smokeless products.
"This is truly a historic day in the fight against tobacco," Waxman said. "But it took us far too long to get here."
The bill would further tighten restrictions on tobacco advertising and impose new federal penalties for selling to minors. But its most far-reaching provisions would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco, from cigarettes to new kinds of smokeless products.
While the agency could not outlaw tobacco or nicotine, it could demand the reduction or elimination of cancer-causing chemicals in cigarette smoke. The bill would prohibit candy flavored cigars and cigarettes, and would give the FDA authority to ban menthol _ by far the most commonly added flavoring.
Opponents of the bill say having a public health agency regulate tobacco would send the wrong message. Besides, they argue that the agency is overwhelmed dealing with food and drug safety problems, and doesn't need complicated new responsibilities.
"In short, what we don't need is creating at the FDA a new draconian bureaucracy, since they're already overburdened and have more work than they know what to do with," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Despite decades of health warnings and smoking bans in most indoor spaces, about one in five adults still smokes. Smoking related-illnesses, including cancer and diseases of the heart and lungs, claim an estimated 440,000 lives a year, more than 10 times the number who die in traffic accidents.
The bill represents a compromise between major tobacco control groups and Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco company. The maker of Marlboro cigarettes broke with most of its peers in the industry to support the legislation. Other big companies, including R.J. Reynolds _ the maker of Camel cigarettes _ remain fiercely opposed.
Public health advocates supporting the bill say regulation will slowly but surely put pressure on the industry, reducing the overall number of smokers and the harm that is caused by tobacco use.
"When you think about it, we regulate pet food, cosmetics, orange juice and many other products," said Cass Wheeler, CEO of the American Heart Association. "We're regulated in every other area and unregulated in tobacco products. But tobacco causes more preventable deaths than anything else."
Philip Morris, however, is hoping the legislation could lead to a new market in federally certified, reduced-risk tobacco products. The bill sets up a process for the FDA to scientifically assess manufacturer claims that certain cigarettes are less risky.
The legislation appears to set a high bar to such claims. Not only must a reduced-risk product "significantly" reduce harm to tobacco users, but it also must "benefit the health" of the entire population. A less risky cigarette that enticed nonsmokers to light up might not meet that test.
Nonetheless, Philip Morris has invested heavily in a new research center to develop less harmful tobacco products. "Our reduced harm research is a big focus for the company," spokesman Bill Phelps said.
Wall Street market analysts predict the legislation will have no major immediate impact on the industry, except to cement Philip Morris' position as the market leader, since the bill's advertising restrictions tend to undercut the competition.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who smokes, said he didn't need the federal government to tell him it was bad for his health.
"This is a boneheaded idea," Boehner said. "How much is enough? How much government do we need?"
But some supporters said the bill was more about protecting children than adults. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., said tobacco use has become synonymous with rugged independence and a refutation of authority, traits that he said many teens desire.
"In large part, the marketing tactics by tobacco manufacturers fanned the flames of youthful angst," Davis said.
A potentially thorny issue as the bill heads to the Senate will be its treatment of menthol, a highly popular flavoring with black smokers. The National African American Tobacco Prevention Network has withdrawn its support for the bill, saying an outright ban on menthol is needed to protect the health of black communities. But with menthol brands accounting for more than one-quarter of cigarettes, Philip Morris' support for the legislation could be in question if the Senate bans the flavoring.
The bill calls for an FDA advisory committee to issue recommendations on methanol in cigarettes within one year of its establishment and requires the agency to publish an action plan for restricting the promotion of methanol and other types of cigarettes to youth.
Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.
The bill H.R. 1108.
On the Net:
Bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov


Stogie News: House Votes to Regulate Tobacco Under the FDA

July 31st, 2008

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted 326-102 to place tobacco under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. The move would give FDA bureaucrats the ability to regulate tobacco as well as tobacco advertisements, a power that both Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt and FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach oppose. In a statement (pdf) released today, the White House threatened to veto the bill if the Senate passes a version pending there and sends it to President Bush’s desk:

“The bill would mandate significant added responsibilities for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that conflict with FDA’s mission of ensuring the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics, and medical devices…

Requiring FDA to oversee the regulation of tobacco products would not only distract the agency from its oversight of food, pharmaceuticals, and medical products but could be perceived by the public as an endorsement that these products are safe, resulting in more people smoking.”

Speaking in favor of the bill, Representative Christopher Van Hollen Jr. (D-MD) made clear that the goal of the bill wasn’t to make cigarettes safer, but to regulate tobacco to reduce its use: “[Smoking] has a huge cost to our society. We have an opportunity to put an end to that…”

The bill would be a significant step towards the FDA declaring all tobacco products unsafe and thus prohibited. As we’ve written before, in an interesting twist, the law forbids the FDA from certifying that some forms of tobacco are safer than others, despite a mountain of evidence, meaning that the only “regulation” the FDA would have at its disposal would be limits on advertising or bans on certain types of tobacco products.

While the bill’s primary target seems to be cigarettes, it could have dire effects on cigar smokers. Besides being another step down the road to complete tobacco prohibition, FDA regulation may mean substantially limited advertising of cigars in magazines and also potentially on websites such as this one. If FDA mandates mean that cigar makers have to worry about nicotine (or other chemical) levels in cigars, it would stifle the creativity that has marked the cigar industry in recent years.

The bill also includes a prohibition on flavored cigarettes (although, oddly, it contains an exception for Menthol). While it is not clear that the flavored smoke ban would include cigars, if it does flavored cigars like Acid and Havana Honeys could be made illegal. Further, demands for “safer” tobacco products could mean a de facto prohibition for handmade cigars which, unlike cigarettes, cannot change their chemical makeup because they are entirely natural products.
http://www.stogieguys.com/2008/07/07312008-stogie-news-house-votes-to-regulate-tobacco-under-the-fda.html


7/31/08
I just read an article regarding FDA bans on smoking on the Natural News website. It is disturbing on several counts.  But the writer is the most disturbing since he writes about freedom to choose, is a proponent of everything natural, and yet hypocritically demonizes those who do not do as he does. 
I truly believe in educating a public to make its own decisions regarding the use of anything that is legal regardless of how it affects their health, since this is difficult for anyone to know except the learned self if he takes the time and has the ambition to learn about himself, to know thyself. 
What truly bothers me about this writer is the sneaky way he demonizes the smokers.  I often wonder if these type of hypocrites feel the same way about car and bus emissions, or better, modern day toxins produced by modern day living. 
I too wonder how these hypocrites feel about the martini, liquor, beer and other things other people enjoy sometimes even to the extreme.  I mean, there are those people who are actually allergic to the air with or without cigarette smoke, like fog, humidity, coal burning, wood burning, smells like cedar and pine, etc., etc.   I could go on an on, but I thought you'd enjoy reading this article. An interesting dialectic. 
If this author truly believes in freedom, and taking responsibility for ones actions and decisions, then why the demonizing and calling all smokers idiots -  see what I mean?
- A Newsletter Reader

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.NaturalNews.com/023743.html
Should the FDA Regulate Tobacco? Health Freedom Advocate Says Criminalizing Cigarettes is a Mistake
Thursday, July 31, 2008 by: Mike Adams

The U.S. Congress has just voted to categorize tobacco as a drug, handing the FDA regulatory authority to control the advertising, marketing and sales of cigarettes. This hilarious move, if approved by the Senate and signed by the President, would put the FDA in the position of approving the sale of a "drug" that the entire medical community openly admits kills millions of people. According to the CDC, tobacco kills 438,000 people each year in the United States alone (1). Now, thanks to the U.S. Congress, the FDA could soon be the government office responsible for allowing these 438,000 deaths each year!

Think about it: Right now, FDA-approved drugs kill around 100,000 Americans a year, and that's if you believe the conservative figures from the American Medical Association (the real numbers are at least double that). Add tobacco deaths to that list, and you come to the startling realization that if tobacco is considered an FDA-approved "drug," then FDA-approved drugs will kill well over half a million Americans each year! (538,000 fatalities a year due to FDA-approved drugs, using government statistics.)

That's a level of fatalities that terrorists haven't even come close to approaching.

Why the FDA doesn't want to regulate tobacco
Obviously, the FDA does not want to find itself in this position, because if regulatory authority over tobacco is shoved onto the FDA, it would be forced to declare tobacco an unapproved, unsafe drug and ban its sale.

Why? Because there have been no clinical studies whatsoever supporting the use of tobacco as a medicine. And if it's considered a drug, then the FDA must apply the same rules to tobacco that it applies to other substances. And there's absolutely no way a series of clinical trials could show tobacco to be safe or effective at treating disease. (Unless, of course, Big Tobacco funds the studies, in which case cigarette smoke could be made to look like it CURES cancer, thanks to fraudulent science and corrupt researchers...)

Thus, if the FDA were to follow its own rules, it would have to ban tobacco outright, considering it an "unapproved drug" and raid all the tobacco companies, confiscating their inventory and dragging them into court just like the FDA does with diet pills companies or cherry growers.

Of course, the FDA could decide to selectively NOT enforce its own rules against tobacco companies, but that puts the agency in an even worse position of making an exception on its drug enforcement policy, singling out the most dangerous "drug" ever created as one that suspiciously escapes regulatory action. That would make the FDA look like even more of a regulatory failure than it does already, calling into question whether the FDA simply bases its regulatory decisions on the size and influence of the corporation affected rather than genuine public safety.

Because, let's face it: Cigarettes will kill you. There's no debate anymore. Even the doctors -- who are the slowest people in the world to accept new ideas -- are on board with this one. Sure, it took them a few decades to stop running Big Tobacco ads in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and doctors used to take money from the tobacco companies to say cigarettes are "Recommended by doctors," but those days are long gone. Today, virtually everyone agrees smoking cigarettes is one of the most dangerous activities a consumer can engage in when it comes to health.

So how on Earth, then, could the FDA allow cigarettes to continue to be sold at all? If it enforces its own rules, it would simply have to ban cigarettes altogether.

And I say banning cigarettes outright is a huge mistake. Here's why:

Why a ban on cigarettes is a threat to your freedom
Now, I'm the first to say that it would be great if everybody in the country stopped smoking cigarettes. I hate the things, and most of the people who smoke them are the most idiotic, brain-numbed people you'll ever meet. I've watched numerous family members die from cancers that were no doubt caused by cigarette smoke, so I have every reason to support any reasonable effort to outlaw them.

Except I don't believe government should be in the business of telling consumers what they can and can't smoke. If someone wants to light up and kill themselves in their own living room, go right ahead! I just don't think the rest of the taxpayers should have to pay for their health care!

Yep, you heard me right: Don't ban cigarettes, just ban government-funded health care benefits to people who choose to smoke (make them buy their own smokers' health insurance). After all, if they want to commit suicide with tobacco, why should the taxpayers pay for their cancer treatments, hospital stays and artificial lungs? Every time someone lights up a cigarette, they're creating a cost burden to society -- a burden paid for by people like you and me who actually take care of our health. Thus, their smoking steals money from OUR pockets.

Non-smokers are subsidizing the disastrous health care costs of smokers, and I think it's time we stopped. After all, if people want to kill themselves with cigarettes, why should we interfere with health care services that try to save their lives? Shouldn't we just give them the freedom to die the way they've chosen by smoking cigarettes in the first place? (If you really believe in freedom, you see, then you also believe in the freedom for people to die the way they choose, and some people choose to die from cancer. If that's the way they want to live and die, that's their choice!)

Use economic incentives to help people quit smoking
While I recommend we stop providing taxpayer-funded health care services for people who smoke, I think we should also offer health care service incentives to help people quit smoking. For example, stop-smoking seminars, hypnosis programs, and other educational efforts should be offered for free (paid for with taxpayer dollars), and anyone who quits smoking should be openly accepted back onto government-funded health care programs. (There are blood tests that can easily detect nicotine and other cigarette chemicals in the blood...)

We should provide economic incentives for people to stop smoking while putting in place severe economic penalties for those who continue to smoke. That's the smarter way to keep individual liberty intact while encouraging consumers to take responsibility for their own behaviors. Education programs combined with appropriately-structured economic incentives will drive millions of Americans away from cigarettes without taking away consumer freedoms.

The other option: Turn smokers into criminals and double the prison population...
Of course, the FDA could just ban cigarettes altogether, but that would create a new kind of tobacco Prohibition situation where people who light up a cigarette are considered criminals, arrested, and locked away in prisons that are already overcrowded with other non-violent offenders (like people who harmlessly smoked a little weed, which is already illegal...)

Today's War on Drugs has been a complete disaster. If we launch a War on Tobacco, we'll just turn the U.S. into an anti-tobacco police state and fills the prisons with people whose only crime was their inability to beat a nicotine addiction.

You see, most people misunderstand the appropriate role of government in a free society. You cannot have "freedom" if you have the government running around criminalizing everything it doesn't want consumers to engage in. (In Singapore, they've banned bubble gum!) Instead, you have to use government to create economic incentives and penalties that allow free-market choice to drive consumers away from those things that are bad for them and towards those things that are good for them.

That's why we should stop subsidizing corn and sugar, by the way: It makes sugar cheaper than it should be and actually encourages consumers to buy more products made with sugar. Corn subsidies make high-fructose corn syrup artificially cheap, too, which is why you find that obesity-promiting ingredient in so many foods and beverages.

Banning cigarettes will simply not work: Addicts will find ways to smoke a little leaf, regardless of the law. And turning them into criminals does not solve the problem. Instead, you need to provide education, services and support that helps consumers get off cigarettes and onto a healthier lifestyle.

Most people who smoke, after all, would like to quit! Consumers are already trending in the right direction on this issue, and with a little help, we could get tens of millions of Americans off these cancer-causing tobacco products and onto a healthier lifestyle.

That's why creating economic policies that support the transition away from cigarettes is the best way to accomplish the goals of getting people to stop smoking.

The easiest way to do this, of course, is to raise the tax on cigarettes. Go crazy with it: Make it cost $10 a pack, and then use that money to pay for the public education ads that tell people to stop smoking.

Denying health care services to smokers is another way to create an economic penalty for smoking. But my suggestion on this is mostly satirical, since such a policy would be considered cruel and would never become law. (I maintain, however, that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund the health care services of smokers. They should be financially responsible to pay for their own cancer treatments, heart surgeries, etc.)

A third way to stop smoking is to make it extremely inconvenient for smokers, such as banning smoking everywhere other than a smoker's own home or vehicle. This is already working in some cities, and it's good public health policy because secondhand smoke is highly toxic, too, and those of us interested in being healthy shouldn't have to breathe the toxic smoke exhaled from people who insist on puffing on cancer sticks.

With a little creativity, a government can create such strong incentives for moving away from smoking that very few consumers will persist in their smoking habits, and that will ultimately save millions of lives and billions of dollars.

Why government should get off our backs and out of our private lives
Banning cigarettes outright is not the answer, nor is granting the FDA regulatory control over tobacco. Sure, in a do-nothing government that remains suspiciously friendly to the tobacco industry, shoving regulatory control over tobacco into the hands of the FDA may be the only remaining option for initiating meaningful anti-tobacco action, but in no way is it an ideal solution to this complex problem. In fact, it could lead to the mass criminalization of innocent Americans who need help quitting, not prison time.

Government, by default, greatly overestimates the power of its role in making decisions for free people. In fact, most governments are incredibly arrogant and demeaning to the People. I think we should put freedom into the hands of consumers and let them live (or die) from the consequences of their own actions.

Consumers who choose to avoid cigarettes will live healthier, longer lives with far lower medical costs. Consumers who choose to smoke cigarettes will live diseased, shorter lives with far higher medical costs, and they'll often die painful cancer deaths. But as long as people are told all this up front, I believe we should let people make their own decisions on this matter. As long as they don't waste taxpayer money on their own sky-high health care costs, I don't see that it's any of our business telling people how they should live or die.

You see, I believe in REAL freedom, not the false freedom marketed by the Bush Administration in its delusional "war on terror." Real freedom means putting power (and responsibility) back into the hands of consumers and letting them decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. It also means getting government off your backs, out of your finances, and away from your private lives.

And I certainly don't think any government should tell you what you can or can't smoke. Even if it kills you.

Yes, government can ban tobacco advertising and marketing. That makes sense. It can restrict sales to people of a certain age, or even run public service announcements that attempt to educate consumers about reasons why they should stop smoking. But it should never turn smokers into criminals. Smoking is not a crime. It's stupid, but it's not criminal. (Unless you do it in MY house, in which case, I do consider it a criminal act, and I'll boot you right out the front door...)


AMA Calls on U.S. House to Better Protect Americans From the Dangers of Tobacco
July 29, 2008
PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- House must pass legislation to give FDA needed regulatory authority over tobacco products
The following is a statement by Ron Davis, M.D., American Medical Association Immediate Past President:
"This week, the U.S. House of Representatives must take a critical step to combat smoking-related diseases by passing the 'Family Smoking and Tobacco Control Act' and giving the FDA needed regulatory authority over tobacco products.
"Given what we know about the dangers of smoking, it is astonishing that tobacco products are one of the least regulated products in our society. Congressional action to provide the FDA with strong and effective regulatory authority over tobacco products is long overdue. The bill will stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children, further restrict marketing, especially to kids, and require more informative health warnings on each package.
"The FDA currently serves a vital role in protecting the health of Americans through the regulation of food and drugs. This bill ensures that the FDA will have the resources necessary to regulate the tobacco industry in addition to its current responsibilities. We should not let another day go by without taking the important step of passing this legislation to enact long-overdue controls over these deadly products."
SOURCE American Medical Association


From a Newsletter Reader:

This comes from an odd source but we really do need to voice our opinion before it's too late!

All Representatives can be called at 202-224-3121, with other contact information at http://www.house.gov/

- - - -

Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880

July 28, 2008

The Honorable Mike Doyle
U.S. House of Representatives
401 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: FDA tobacco regulatory legislation (H.R.1108)

Dear Representative Doyle:

Smokefree Pennsylvania urges you to oppose H.R. 1108, a negotiated deal
agreed to by cigarette giant Philip Morris and the Campaign for Tobacco
Free Kids in 2004, because it:

- deceives the public to believe that smokefree products are just as
hazardous as cigarettes,
- protects cigarettes and Philip Morris from market competition by
smokefree products,
- authorizes and paves the way for FDA to perpetuate the safer cigarette
myth/fraud, and
- denies the FDA authority to halt cigarette marketing/sales to high school
students.

Sound regulations truthfully inform consumers about the known risks of
different products. Cigarettes are about 100 times deadlier than smokefree
(i.e. smokeless) tobacco products, but nearly 90% of smokers incorrectly
believe that smokefree tobacco products are just as hazardous as
cigarettes.  Instead of accurately informing smokers about product risks,
H.R. 1108 protects cigarettes (especially Marlboro) by perpetuating this
myth/fraud.

Smokers can sharply reduce their health risks by switching to smokefree
tobacco products, and tobacco consumers have a right to know the huge
differences in risks posed by these tobacco products.  I coauthored a
report "Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for
addicted smokers" at http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/37 

Sound regulations also provide incentives for industry to develop and
transition to safer products.  Tobacco consumers in the U.S. now obtain
about 80% of their nicotine from the deadliest product (cigarettes), and
about 20% from the least hazardous tobacco/nicotine products (smokefree).
But H.R. 1108 discourages cigarette companies from developing and marketing
less hazardous alternatives by prohibiting all smokefree tobacco products
from truthfully claiming they are less hazardous alternatives to
cigarettes, and by requiring all smokefree tobacco products to contain even
larger deceptive warning labels stating: "This product is not a safe
alternative to cigarettes."

While H.R. 1108 properly bans deceptive "low-tar", "light" and "mild" brand
descriptors for cigarettes, the bill simultaneously perpetuates this deadly
consumer health myth/fraud (also incorrectly believed by about 85% of
smokers) that some cigarettes are safer than others by failing to warn
smokers that all cigarettes are equally hazardous, and by authorizing and
paving the way for the FDA to establish deceptive cigarette emission
standards based upon inaccurate cigarette machine tests (which is what
created the low-tar/lights safer cigarette myth/fraud several decades ago
under FTC oversight).

Also, in sharp contrast to claims that H.R. 1108 would halt tobacco
industry marketing to youth, Section 906(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the legislation
protects the tobacco industry by prohibiting the FDA from halting tobacco
sales to high school students (by prohibiting the FDA from ending tobacco
sales to 18 or 19 year olds), ensuring that millions of high school
students will continue becoming addicted to cigarettes under FDA oversight.

Smokefree Pennsylvania strongly supports reasonable and responsible federal
regulations for different tobacco products.  But Philip Morris' Marlboro
cigarette brand is the primary beneficiary of H.R. 1108, not public health
nor tobacco consumers.

Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated policies to reduce tobacco
smoke pollution indoors, increase cigarette taxes, reduce tobacco marketing
to youth, preserve civil justice remedies for victims, expand smoking
cessation services, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine
products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

Thank you for your consideration, and feel free to contact me anytime.

Sincerely,
William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director



AWMA & NATO Issue Joint Letter on FDA Bill

The American Wholesale Marketers Association (AWMA) and the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) have issued a joint letter to all 435 U.S. Representatives outlining serious concerns that the two national organizations have with the pending bill in Congress to grant the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products.

In the joint letter, three main concerns about the FDA legislation are highlighted. First, the bill grants the FDA virtually unlimited powers to adopt future regulations based solely on public health concerns without taking into account the negative impact such regulations would have on distributors and retailers. Second, the bill grants the FDA, other federal agencies, states, counties and cities the express authority to virtually prohibit the distribution, sale, advertising, promotion, possession and use of tobacco products. Third, the “user fees” that would be charged to manufacturers to fund the FDA regulation would amount to $7.6 billion over the first ten years of regulation which would more appropriately be labeled a new tax to be paid by consumers that purchase tobacco products.

In short, the joint letter concludes that the FDA bill "is a complex piece of legislation that creates a new federal bureaucracy to enact onerous regulations that will likely place hundreds of wholesalers and thousands of retail stores in jeopardy of going out of business with the consequent laying off of untold millions of employees."
http://www.natocentral.org/


Blacks in Congress Split Over Menthol Cigarettes

July 25, 2008
By STEPHANIE SAUL

Free cigarettes are no longer handed out at Congressional Black Caucus functions. And it has been years since anyone referred to Edolphus Towns, Democrat of Brooklyn, as the "Marlboro Man" for his campaign contributions from the tobacco industry.

But the Congressional Black Caucus has not severed its financial ties to big tobacco. And that can complicate matters when the political discussion involves smoking's impact on African-Americans.

A rift has opened in the 43-member caucus over a menthol provision in legislation that would enable the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. To reduce smoking's appeal to teenagers, the legislation would outlaw flavored cigarettes - except for menthol cigarettes, which are specifically exempted.

With menthol brands making up about 28 percent of the $70 billion American cigarette market, the exemption was seen as a necessary compromise to win broad backing for the legislation.

But menthol has become a politically charged subject in Washington because an estimated 75 percent of black smokers choose mentholated brands.

Scientists have long wondered whether menthol might play a role in the disproportionate share of smoking-related cancer among African-Americans - if for no other reason than the additive may mask the harshness of the smoke, making it easier for teenagers to begin smoking.

Critics of the menthol exemption tend to denounce it as a sellout to the tobacco industry, and some members of the black caucus are pressing to narrow the exemption or ban menthol outright. But other caucus members oppose any changes, saying that pushing too hard now on menthol could endanger the legislation.

Concerns about the racial implications of menthol may have been heightened last week by a Harvard study stating that cigarette makers had deliberately manipulated menthol levels to attract young people.

As long as two decades ago, Brown & Williamson, then the maker of Kool cigarettes, concluded that the menthol cigarette was a "good starter product" because new smokers "already know what menthol tastes like, vis-à-vis candy," according to a company memo.

"It's a very emotional issue," said Elijah E. Cummings, a member of the caucus from Maryland who tells stories of the deadly impact of cigarette smoking in his hometown, Baltimore. He opposes the menthol exemption.

But the caucus's chairwoman, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, says its members, all Democrats, are deeply divided on the subject. "The caucus is split," she said. "We do want to see menthol regulated, but we're convinced that eliminating or prohibiting menthol would be a killer for the bill."

The legislation in its current form, with the menthol exemption, has broad support in the House. It also has the backing of many health groups, as well as the nation's biggest cigarette company, Philip Morris USA, whose support is considered crucial for passage. The company makes Marlboro Menthol, the second-biggest menthol brand.

Philip Morris over the years has been one of the biggest contributors to the caucus's nonprofit Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. That financial support, in some years exceeding $250,000, and lesser amounts at times from other cigarette makers, has been the reason some critics perceived an alliance between big tobacco and African-American members of Congress, some of whom were willing to help fend off antitobacco efforts.

Among them, some critics have said, was Charles B. Rangel of New York. Although he supported some antitobacco initiatives, until the last few years Mr. Rangel staunchly opposed federal tobacco tax increases. He has said his stand was based on the disproportionate effect of excise taxes on the poor, not the thousands of dollars he received in tobacco industry political action committee donations.

Some caucus members have always seen tobacco money as a Faustian bargain and refused to take such donations, urging their colleagues to do likewise. One of them, John Lewis of Georgia, once told a reporter, "People are reluctant to criticize the giver, to bite the hand that feeds them."

Black lawmakers who maintain strong tobacco industry ties include James E. Clyburn, who represents a tobacco-growing region of South Carolina and is majority whip of the House. Last year, Altria, the parent of Philip Morris, donated $50,000 to an endowment he established at South Carolina State University, a historically black college.

And yet, even before the menthol controversy erupted, tobacco money was gradually becoming less crucial to the group, as it attracted more money from a broader segment of industries, including drug makers.

Last year the caucus unanimously supported legislation to finance the children's health insurance program, Schip, with a 45-cent tax increase on tobacco products. Mr. Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sponsored the legislation. The caucus has sponsored college antismoking programs and smoking-cessation talks.

Ms. Kilpatrick, from Michigan, said the black caucus was drafting an amendment to the House tobacco regulation bill, possibly to call for a study of menthol. That is short of what some members had hoped for - a phase-out of menthol cigarettes.

Philip Morris declined to say whether the company would continue its support for the bill if menthol were banned.

Some supporters of the legislation in its current form argue that an outright ban on menthol may drive menthol smokers to contraband imported cigarettes.

The Bush administration opposes the tobacco legislation, saying it would do more harm than good by seeming to give an F.D.A. imprimatur to smoking. In the Senate, the issue is not expected to be taken up until after a House floor vote, which could come before the end of July.

Tobacco companies opposed to the legislation include Lorillard, maker of the leading menthol brand, Newport, the favorite of African-American smokers. The company, which says there is no scientific evidence that menthol is harmful, argues that the legislation' s marketing restrictions would place smaller companies at a competitive disadvantage against the giant, Philip Morris.

Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who is the House bill's sponsor, has indicated he is unwilling to risk the bill's passage by making major changes in its menthol language. He has said the bill gives the F.D.A. the power to regulate menthol if it is shown to be harmful. In transmitting the bill to the House of Representatives last week, the Energy and Commerce Committee included a note that urged the F.D.A. to "move quickly to address the unique public health issues posed by menthol cigarettes."

Two former federal health secretaries, Joseph A. Califano Jr. and Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, who is African-American, met recently with Mr. Waxman to argue against the menthol exemption. Because he said he was unlikely to change his mind, they later sent him a letter saying "the current version of the bill, which gives menthol a protected status, would have the effect of discriminating against the health interests of African-Americans. " The letter was also signed by William S. Robinson, executive director of the National African-American Tobacco Prevention Network.

In response to a reporter's query, Mr. Waxman said in a written response, "I've clearly heard the concerns that we can and should do more to address the issue of menthol in cigarettes."

For his part, Mr. Cummings, listed as one of 234 co-sponsors of the legislation along with many other members of the black caucus, said he could not predict how he or the others would vote. Mr. Cummings, who formerly served as chairman of the caucus, acknowledged that tobacco contributions might have influenced caucus members in the past.

But he added, "When you look in a cancer patient's eye, I think it becomes much more difficult to look at the contributions that may be given to support the caucus and be swayed by them than it was before."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/business/25menthol.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin



FDA/Core Mission

Energy and Commerce Committee to Consider FDA Legislation Next Week

AWMA Update

March 27, 2008

Author N/A

http://www.awmanet.org/update/080327update06.html

Recently, AWMA reported that the House Subcommittee on Health had approved legislation – HR 1108 – that would provide the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with broad regulatory power to regulate all tobacco products.  This measure is now slated to be considered by the full Committee on Energy and Commerce sometime during the first week of April. 

Rep. Pallone and NJ Health Advocates: New Generation of Tobacco Products Threatens Efforts to Reduce Tobacco Use in New Jersey

Politcker NJ

March 26, 2008

By Rachel Napear

http://www.politickernj.com/rep-pallone-and-nj-health-advocates-new-generation-tobacco-products-threatens-efforts-reduce-tobacco

Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) spoke to students at James Monroe Elementary School today and explained how an insidious new generation of tobacco products is threatening efforts to reduce tobacco use in the United States. 

McCain: GOP and the Economy

First Read - MSNBC

March 26, 2008

Author N/A

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/809975.aspx

…The Boston Globe notes, "McCain's longtime effort to crack down on tobacco is being put to a new test. Within weeks, the Senate is expected to vote on legislation to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. McCain agreed months ago to cosponsor the current bill with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, but McCain's policy adviser said the senator won't commit to voting for it until he sees the final legislation.

Will McCain Abandon His Past Efforts to regulate tobacco in order to pander to conservatives?

Think Progress

March 26, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/26/mccain-tobacco-tax/

In 1998, while pushing his bill that would increase cigarette taxes by $1.10 over five years, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) argued that it was “time to put an end to” tobacco companies encouraging “children to purchase tobacco in every state in the country.” Though McCain’s bill “fell three votes short of the needed 60 to end a filibuster,” he declared at the time that he would “never” give up his efforts to regulate the industry.

FDA Boss: Unfunded Provisions Giving Agency Headache

Congress Daily

March 26, 2008

By Anna Edney

http://nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+CONGRESS-_-POLL_TRACK-_-AD_SPOTLIGHT+7-cdindex+1233757-REVERSE+0+1+1722+F+1+1110+1+FDA

FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach told food and drug lawyers today the agency is struggling with ambiguities and a lack of resources as it works to implement an agency overhaul Congress passed in the summer. Von Eschenbach praised much of the bill for the new authorities and drug-industry user fees it granted the agency but bemoaned other unfunded provisions that are causing FDA to reshuffle its deck.

Our impoverished FDA

The Washington Times

March 27, 2008

By Henry Miller

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080327/COMMENTARY/571895064

The head of the Food and Drug Administration, the nation's most ubiquitous regulatory agency — which regulates products accounting for 25 cents of every consumer dollar — is crying poor. Dissatisfied with the 5.7 percent increase proposed in the Bush administration's 2009 budget, FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach said in a Wall Street Journal interview that the agency is in a financial bind and that he had requested more.

CQ's Carey Discusses Tobacco Regulation; Congressional Testimony By Medical Researchers; PEPFAR Reauthorization; House, Senate Budget Resolutions

Medical News Today

March 18, 2008

Mary Agnes Carey, associate editor of CQ HealthBeat, examines legislation that would require FDA to regulate tobacco products, NIH funding, reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the House and Senate fiscal year 2009 budget resolutions in this week's "Health on the Hill from kaisernetwork.org and CQ."


American Lung Association Deceives Constituents in Promoting FDA Tobacco Legislation

March 10, 2008
By Michael Siegel
In an effort to promote the proposed FDA tobacco legislation, the American Lung Association (ALA) is telling its constituents and the rest of the public that the bills presently before Congress would ban all flavored cigarettes. In addition, the ALA is telling the public that the legislation would require changes in tobacco products to reduce their harm, such as reduction of harmful smoke components.

According to the ALA: "The FDA bill would ban flavored cigarettes and crack down on other marketing to our kids."

In addition: "Effective FDA authority over tobacco products will protect public health, improve consumer awareness and save lives. It will ... Require changes in tobacco products to reduce harm such as reduction of harmful components when technologically feasible."

The Rest of the Story


There are just 2 problems with the American Lung Association's statements.

First, the FDA bill does not ban all cigarette flavorings. It only bans the ones which are rarely used, such as: chocolate, cherry, banana, and strawberry. But it explicitly exempts menthol, which is overwhelmingly the chief flavoring used in United States cigarettes.

According to the most recent Federal Trade Commission cigarette report, menthol cigarettes make up 27% of the domestic cigarette market. Thus, contrary to the ALA's assertion that flavored cigarettes will be banned, the legislation will allow the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes - 27% of the current market - to continue. This is particularly concerning for the African-American community, as menthol cigarette use is high among this group and menthol is used to recruit young African-American smokers.

Second, the FDA bill does not require changes which will reduce the harm from cigarettes. In fact, it merely allows, but does not require, that FDA promulgate standards which call for the reduction or elimination of certain cigarette smoke constituents, ingredients, or additives.

Thus, the FDA could take no action at all. Moreover, the ALA has not produced any evidence whatsoever that a "safety standard" for cigarettes could produce a safer cigarette. Any such standards promulgated by the FDA will be a pure guess. But consumers will assume that cigarettes have been made safer.

In other words, the fraud that is purportedly being committed by cigarette companies in implying that certain cigarette brands are safer will now be transferred over to the federal government. And it will apply not just to specific types of cigarettes, but to all cigarettes.

Regardless of my individual opposition to the FDA legislation, I find it unethical for the American Lung Association to mislead its constituents and the public by being dishonest and deceiving them about what the legislation does and does not require.

My true feeling is that this legislation is so weak and contains so many compromises to appease Philip Morris that organizations like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Lung Association, and the American Medical Association cannot afford to tell the truth about it. Doing so would expose it for the Philip Morris protection scam that it really is.

So it's no surprise that the American Lung Association has joined the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Cancer Society in being dishonest and deceptive about the FDA legislation. This appears to be their only choice if they don't want the public's perception of the bill as one that protects public health to come crumbling to the ground. But it still doesn't make it right to deceive the public.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/03/american-lung-association-deceives.html


Read more from Michael Siegel
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/207.html



Read more: FDA Regulation AGAIN! Page 3