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/
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."
