| |
FDA Update
Read Newest Articles: FDA Regulation AGAIN! Page 3
Read more articles from Google News
Zogby International Survey Shows that Public Opposes FDA Tobacco Legislation; Reveals that Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' Polls Were Junk Science November 1, 2007 By Michael Siegel According to a Zogby international poll released on Monday, nearly two-thirds of the public are opposed to the current proposal in Congress to have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulate tobacco products. The poll found that 65% of U.S. adults oppose the proposed legislation -- supported by Philip Morris and by anti-smoking groups such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TFK) -- which would give the FDA limited regulatory authority over tobacco products. Nearly half of the public (47%) stated that they strongly oppose the legislation. The results of this poll conflict sharply with those of a poll commissioned by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which reportedly showed that 70% of American voters support the proposed FDA tobacco legislation. Read More
October 10, 2007 This commentary is important because it is the first to provide a concrete demonstration of why the proposed tobacco product standards in the FDA legislation make no sense. The commentary shows how absurd the regulatory approach taken by the FDA legislation is. The reality is that the FDA is not going to know whether or not its proposed changes to cigarette components are going to make cigarettes safer or not. So the FDA is going to use smokers as guinea pigs to figure that out. Now that may be fine; however, in the mean time, people are going to be given the implied message that cigarettes are safer. In other words, the fraud that the tobacco companies were found guilty of committing against American consumers by implying a safer product without documentation will now be transferred over to the United States government. The commentary appears today on my tobacco policy blog: IN MY VIEW: Proposed FDA Tobacco Product Safety Standards Make No Sense, and Have No Confirmed Connection with Safety http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/10/in-my-view-proposed-fda-tobacco-product.htmlCampaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Deceives Congress About Nature of Public Support for FDA Tobacco Legislation; Testimony Presents Junk Science http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/10/campaign-for-tobacco-free-kids-deceives.html Michael Siegel, MD, MPH Professor Associate Chair of Academics Social and Behavioral Sciences Department Boston University School of Public Health
Tobacco Harm Reduction Catches On Jacob Sullum | October 10, 2007 Yesterday I mentioned the controversy over legislation that would give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products, authority the FDA itself (or at least its current head) does not want. One reason for the agency's leeriness is the possibility that FDA regulation could actually increase the harm associated with tobacco use. One way that could happen, as I've noted before, is through censorship of truthful comparative risk claims—in particular, efforts to promote smokeless tobacco as a harm-reducing alternative to cigarettes. Last week there were a couple of positive developments in this area. Read MoreFDA Chief: Please Don't Make Us Regulate Tobacco Jacob Sullum | Reason Magazine, October 9, 2007 Last week FDA chief Andrew von Eschenbach, who earlier this year expressed concern about legislation that would give his agency regulatory authority over tobacco products, testified against the bill, known as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Von Eschenbach said tobacco regulation does not fit well with the FDA's mission to approve products based on a determination that their benefits outweigh their risks... Read More
Clergy push for anti-tobacco law BETH RUCKER, Associated Press August 29, 2007 NASHVILLE — Religious leaders have a “moral imperative” to urge Congress to allow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes, said Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention. Read
Regulating Tobacco August 10, 2007
To the Editor: Re “Put Out This Tobacco Bill,” by Patrick Basham (Op-Ed, Aug. 3): On Aug. 1, the Senate took the first step toward enactment of legislation authorizing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products, the No. 1 preventable cause of death in America. Public health experts overwhelmingly believe that it is the most important action Congress can take to protect children from this deadly addiction. For decades, the federal government has stayed on the sidelines and done next to nothing to deal with this enormous health problem. The tobacco industry has been allowed to mislead consumers, make false health claims, conceal the lethal contents of its products, make its products even more addictive and, worst of all, seduce generations of children into lifetimes of addiction and early death. The alternative to F.D.A. regulation is more of the same. What can F.D.A. regulation accomplish? It can reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising targeted at children. It can ban the sale of tobacco products to minors. It can stop the tobacco industry from making unsubstantiated health claims that mislead the public about the dangers of smoking. It can help smokers overcome their addiction. It can require tobacco products to be less toxic and less addictive for those who continue to use them. Enacting this bill this year is the right thing to do for America’s children. Edward M. Kennedy Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Washington Read
FDA might get regulatory power over tobacco
Senate panel, Philip Morris back measure August 2, 2007
By Diedtra Henderson, Globe Staff WASHINGTON -- A US Senate panel approved legislation yesterday that, after decades of effort, would give the nation's top health agency broad regulatory authority over tobacco products, paving the way for additional restrictions on advertising, tougher warning labels, and reduced levels of addictive nicotine. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, had languished during Republican-majority rule of the US House and Senate, unable to get time on a committee calendar and thwarted when passed from the floor. The bill that cleared a congressional panel yesterday in a 13-to-8 vote was the result of years of negotiations that forged an unlikely coalition uniting dozens of health groups with the tobacco giant Philip Morris to back giving the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products. "This is the public health community speaking with one voice," said Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which endorsed the bill. "With all the provisions we have in the tobacco bill, we have a real opportunity to save a generation of Americans from a lifetime of addiction and certain death." The FDA currently can regulate such nicotine-replacement products as gums and patches, but it lacks regulatory oversight over cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Kennedy said the tobacco legislation would gain additional power through a 61-cent increase in tobacco taxes to finance a $35 billion boost in funding for children's health. The Senate measure, which has broad support, is expected to be approved later this week. When cigarette prices rise by 10 percent, children's smoking drops 6.5 percent on average, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Under the Kennedy legislation, the FDA could silence those ads aimed at children, as well as block the sale of candy-flavored cigarettes used to hook children on smoking. Under Kennedy's bill, the FDA could reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, but only Congress could ban cigarettes entirely. According to the American Cancer Society, tobacco use causes nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States, or roughly 440,000, each year and raises healthcare bills by $167 billion annually. While smoking is at its lowest levels since World War II, more than 20 percent of Americans smoke. Nearly all started as children; the average smoker takes his or her first puff at age 13 and smokes every day by age 15. Yesterday's slim majority however, came as Republican-sponsored amendments loom that could gut the bill's main intent. Such opponents as Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, a tobacco-producing state, offered dozens of amendments at the committee level and promised more from the Senate floor to chip away at the bill's scope. Kennedy rejected most of the amendments, saying they would undermine the legislation. Burr has said that he may offer his own bill or use procedural tactics to stall Kennedy's measure on the Senate floor. He also chastised the excise tax increase as a mechanism to fund children's healthcare and expand FDA staffing sufficiently to regulate tobacco. "The honey pot right now is tobacco excise taxes. The fact is, they'll find, if they implement those, that there will be a reduction in tobacco usage," Burr said in a recent interview. He said the move would imperil state budgets that rely on tobacco taxes to ease shortfalls. Senator Michael B. Enzi, the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, denounced the bill as "fundamentally flawed" and said it merely locks in place Philip Morris's dominant market share. "If this bill is good for Big Tobacco, how can it be good for public health?" said Enzi, whose mother and father died smoking-related deaths. "The fact is it can't. This bill is nothing more than a Marlboro Protection Act." Philip Morris USA, manufacturer of Marlboro, supports the bill, a stance at odds with industry rivals and companies that manufacture smokeless tobacco. Enzi says his own bill would cut smoking rates faster than Kennedy's measure and would reduce nicotine content by about 98 percent over a generation. Kennedy, whose 53 cosponsors include 12 Republicans, acknowledged the challenge. "Ultimately, we're going to have to get 60 votes," he said. "All of that is doable." Read
US Senate committee approves FDA regulation of tobacco for first time The Associated Press, Wednesday, August 1, 2007 WASHINGTON: A U.S. Senate committee approved legislation Wednesday that would for the first time allow federal regulation of cigarettes. The bill, approved 13-8 by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, would give the government's Food and Drug Administration authority to restrict tobacco advertising, regulate warning labels and remove hazardous ingredients. The agency also would be given the authority to set standards for products that tobacco companies advertise as "reduced risk" products. "This is an enormous step forward," said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids advocacy group. "This could end up being the signature public health action this Congress takes." The bill has broad bipartisan support in the Senate, where more than 50 senators have signed on as co-sponsors. A similar bill passed the chamber in 2004 but was blocked in the House of Representatives. "The bipartisan legislation will save millions of lives and save others from a lifetime of addiction and certain death," said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who sponsored the bill. The tobacco legislation was required several years of negotiations led by Kennedy and former Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, with ideas from health groups and tobacco giant Philip Morris USA, which broke from its competitors to endorse FDA regulation. The bill would allow the FDA to reduce the amount of nicotine allowed in cigarettes, but only Congress could ban them permanently. The committee adopted an amendment by Republican Sen. Mike Enzi that would ban clove cigarettes in the United States, which reversed a decision by Kennedy to allow the FDA to decide. Kennedy, the panel's chairman, said he was responding to several senators who contacted him with concerns that a ban on cloves would not be compliant with World Trade Organization rules. But Kennedy agreed to the ban after several senators objected. Most cloves are marketed in Asia, and Philip Morris International recently launched a Marlboro cigarette flavored with cloves in Indonesia. Kennedy said at the meeting that Philip Morris had "nothing to do with our decision" and he supported the clove ban as long as it is complies with WTO rules. Philip Morris's competitors strongly oppose the overall bill, which they say would lock in Philip Morris's dominant market share. The panel rejected several amendments by Republican Sen. Richard Burr, who represents R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in his home state of North Carolina. Kennedy said Burr's amendments would undermine the legislation. After the hearing, Burr said he would not rule out trying to hold up the bill on the Senate floor. Enzi, the top Republican on the panel, also opposes the legislation and has objected to Philip Morris's involvement. "If this bill is good for big tobacco, how can it be good for public health?" Enzi asked after the hearing. "The fact is, it can't. This bill is nothing more than a 'Marlboro Protection Act,' written to keep Philip Morris at the top of the tobacco market." Enzi has introduced his own bill that would aim to shrink the size of the tobacco market greatly over the next 20 years. A company statement issued by Altria said the company will "continue to lend our full support to this process." "We hope to work with all interested stakeholders to achieve the best legislation possible," the statement said. Read
Congress Readies Bill to Give FDA Tobacco OversightWashington Post, United States - Jul 25, 2007However, the bills would not require FDA approval of tobacco products already on the market; only new products would need FDA approval before they could be ...
Senate panel eyes bill to give FDA say on cigs July 17, 2007 WASHINGTON - The federal agency charged with keeping food and drugs from harming people may soon be asked to take a consumer product that kills more than 400,000 people a year and make it safer. The product is the cigarette - generally acknowledged as anything but safe. Smoking accounts for nearly one in five deaths in the United States. That toll can be reduced, tobacco foes say, and they point to a bill that is expected to pass a Senate committee tomorrow as the tool to make it happen. The legislation would give the Food and Drug Administration the same authority over cigarettes and other tobacco products that the regulatory agency already has over countless other consumer products. The bill would allow the FDA to regulate the levels of tar, nicotine and other harmful components of tobacco products. “Are we going to cut cancer in half with FDA control? No. Can we do with cigarettes things that are important in regulating a product to minimize its toxicity? Yes, I think we can,” said the University of California’s Dr. David Burns, scientific editor of several surgeon general reports on tobacco. New products would need FDA approval before they could be sold, according to the legislation. The bill also would authorize the FDA to set national standards for tobacco products to control how they are made, as well as force the disclosure of their ingredients, including compounds and additives, and in what quantities. No one among those for or against the Senate bill believes it could result in a safe cigarette. There is consensus that there is no such thing. “The problem is the public is going to perceive the product is safe because the FDA has assumed jurisdiction,” said Dr. Michael Siegel, a Boston University School of Public Health professor. Read
FDA Tobacco Bill Spells Trouble
Bill Dubbed ‘Marlboro Monopoly Act’ Washington, D.C., July 17, 2007—The Senate health committee on Wednesday is scheduled to mark up a bill that would put the Food and Drug Administration in charge of regulating tobacco, despite major problems associated with the agency’s current regulatory duties. “Tobacco does not need FDA regulation, and regulating tobacco is the last thing that FDA needs to being doing,” said Sam Kazman, General Counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “The agency is already performing poorly in making new drugs available to the public, and a major new regulatory program would only worsen that situation.” A recent CEI survey of orthopedic surgeons, for example, showed that most of these specialists view the current FDA approval process as already too slow. And a CEI report explains why FDA already labors under a deadly culture of risk aversion, which unnecessarily delays product approvals. “Ultimately, FDA’s inclinations are ‘prohibitionist’; it would come as close as it could to making cigarettes unpalatable, unaffordable, and possibly unavailable,” Kazman explained. The FDA-tobacco bill is troubling for other reasons, too. “Philip Morris sees FDA regulation as a major competitive advantage,” said Kazman. “As the dominant company in the industry, Philip Morris is able to absorb regulatory costs that many competitors cannot.” ANA, AAAA, AAF Send Letter to Senate HELP Committee
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee plans to mark up legislation tomorrow that would impose extremely burdensome, onerous and clearly unconstitutional restrictions on tobacco advertising. Changes to the bill have completely failed to respond to the serious defects in regard to advertising regulations that were contained in the legislation that Senator Kennedy introduced in February. It still contains proposals that legal experts from across the political spectrum have determined are unconstitutional. To make the committee aware of these numerous serious constitutional infirmities, ANA, along with the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the American Advertising Federation, has sent a letter to the HELP Committee calling on the Committee to reject these proposals. We believe these proposals would create very dangerous precedents for the whole advertising and media communities. Our letter can be viewed after the jump. July 17, 2007 The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
SR-317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2101 Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) and the American Advertising Federation (AAF), we are writing to express our opposition to several of the marketing provisions of S.625, the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.” Attached is a copy of the detailed statement we submitted to the Committee prior to the hearing in February. The proposed changes to the legislation since then have not mitigated our strong concerns. We take no position on the provisions of the bill that would generally grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products. We oppose section 102 of the bill, which would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish an interim final rule that is “identical in its provisions” to the proposed rule promulgated by the FDA in 1996. Legal experts from across the political spectrum, including Harvard University Law Professor Laurence Tribe, Judge Robert Bork, the American Civil Liberties U nion and the Washington Legal Foundation, have all closely examined the proposed rule. All of them agree that the sweeping and unprecedented restrictions in that proposal, which would result in a de facto ban on tobacco advertising, would violate the First Amendment. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Thomas Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) that a Massachusetts tobacco regulation that was virtually identical to one part of the FDA proposal was unconstitutional. Section 201 of the bill would add new disclosure requirements for all tobacco advertising on top of those contained in the FDA’s 1996 proposed rule. In addition, the bill would require the FDA to conduct a rulemaking to determine whether it should mandate the inclusion of tar and nicotine yields in all labels and advertising. All of the various disclosure requirements of S.625 place the government in the role of copywriter. By “seizing” a substantial portion of every tobacco ad for government-mandated disclosures, the bill raises serious First Amendment concerns about “compelled speech” and could result in an unconstitutional “taking” of a company’s commercial property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We also oppose section 203 of S.625, which would grant new authority to state and local governments to impose “specific bans or restrictions on the time, place and manner” of tobacco advertisements. Much of the advertising for tobacco products occurs in interstate commerce. Allowing individual states and local governments to impose their own bans or restrictions would result in a crazy-quilt of inconsistent laws, making compliance with state laws virtually impossible. For all of these reasons, we urge you to remove these marketing provisions from S.625. The government can take strong, effective steps to restrict tobacco sales and access to minors without trampling on the First Amendment. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Daniel L. Jaffe Executive Vice President Association of National Advertisers 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 520-S Washington, DC 20036 (202) 296-1883 djaffe@ana.netRichard F. O’Brien Executive Vice President American Association of Advertising Agencies 1203 19th Street, NW, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7345 dobrien@aaaadc.orgJeffry L. Perlman Executive Vice President American Advertising Federation 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0089 jperlman@aaf.orgRead
FDA Tobacco Regulation Idea So Detrimental that Supporters Amend Bill to Preclude Tobacco Companies from Stating that the FDA Regulates Cigarettes 7/17/07 By Michael Siegel. The rest of the story is that hastily, and obviously without too much insight, proponents of the FDA legislation have written into the bill the exact reasons to kill it. The bill now exposes its own folly. It reveals its lack of sensibility. Read
Philip Morris USA Supports Institute of Medicine's Call for FDA Regulation of Tobacco Products May 24, 2007 The Institute of Medicine's (IOM) latest report on tobacco use in the United States demonstrates the critical importance of effective regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration. Read
Nicotine-Free Cigarettes May Increase Heart Disease Risks for Smokers; New Study Reveals Another Potential Contraindication to FDA Tobacco Legislation May 17, 2007 By Michael Siegel It is just as likely that the proposed regulation by the FDA could lead to changes that increase the health risks of cigarettes and kill people, rather than save lives. Read
Healthcare not a government tool May 4, 2007 By Drs. Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak If you think the FDA is only giving doctors, hospitals, and drug companies a hard time, think about this recent note in The Wall Street Journal: "The Food and Drug Administration recently argued in the D.C. Court of Appeals that it has the power to ban meat and vegetables without violating anyone's fundamental rights." In other words, FDA agents also want to give you a hard time in the grocery store; they could claim to know what food is best for you, regardless of what you might think, smell, or taste. This is like the Marx brothers asking, "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Read
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER Feds eye control of vitamins, supplements – even water! FDA looks to regulate natural substances as drugs, with prescriptions from doctors April 24, 2007 By Bob Unruh The Food and Drug Administration says vitamins, supplements, herbs and other natural substances, including water when it is used to "treat" dehydration, should be classified as drugs, and opponents have only until April 30 to express their concern about the proposals under Docket No. 2006D-0480. Read
Please write today. Use your own words or the note below as your own.
- A Newsletter Reader ********************************** Action Alert Against FDA Regulation
As a consumer and voter in your state, I urge you to please oppose, in its
current form, S. 625, legislation that would give the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate both the manufacture and
retail of tobacco products. While this bill may be well intentioned, it
contains several causes for concern from a consumer standpoint.
Tobacco products are still legal for sale in the United States, and
responsible retailers should be allowed to make those products available to
adults.
Unfortunately, it is not clear how much money and new resources it would take
for the FDA to implement these new regulations. If passed, this bill would
require the monitoring, inspection, and licensing of more than 300,000
retailers in the US who are legally selling tobacco products. Given the
FDA's recent track-record, it is unlikely to meet these new requirements.
State regulation of tobacco products continues to be successful. Coupled
with the push by retailers to crack down on sales to minors, youth smoking
rates have been declining for several years; there is no over-riding public
need to alter a system that is working to one that would treat adult
consumers as requiring in loco parentis supervision throughout their adult
lives.
Furthermore, this bill would punish retailers if the packaging, labeling, or
advertising for tobacco products are found to be out of compliance.
Retailers should not be punished for manufacturers' or distributors' acts.
Adult consumers are additionally penalized for purchasing a legal product. It
is not government's place to decree for its adult constituents what are
permitted as healthy or unhealthy practices. From the first steps against
tobacco use there has begun an unlimited intrusion into any other lifestyle
choice some activist group decided to target, such as trans fats. We are
adults and should not be treated as minors in need of a legally appointed
guardian. Give us pertinent information on the product and then, by right,
you must let us make our own decisions -- else our enshrined principle of
individual liberty rings hollow.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
********************************** Click here to send your letter
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Section-by-Section Title 1 - Authority of the Food and Drug Administration Read
National Black Chamber Opposes New FDA Tobacco Regulations 3/7/07 Bad for business, bad for consumers; NBCC President submits testimony to HELP Committee Read
NLPC Tells U.S. Senate: Amend S.625 to Permit Relative Risk Claims for Competing Tobacco Products 2/28/07 ReadCigarette makers divided as tobacco wars resume February 25, 2007 They don't want the clock to stop and be stuck at 10 percent market share with Camel ReadCigarette makers split as tobacco wars resume Feb 25, 2007 Karina Bland ... A Reynolds spokesman added that the company could accept the FDA as industry regulator, but not if that meant the FDA could dictate how cigarettes are made to the point where smokers would not want to smoke them. Read
Muth's Truths February 18, 2007
By Chuck Muth TOBACCO REGULATION SMOKE-SCREEN Have you ever seen anyone sit down at the breakfast table and pour themselves a big ol' bowl of cigarettes? Of course not. Why not? Because cigarettes aren't food, that's why. Have you ever seen someone at the drug store waiting for their prescription of Marlboros? Of course not. Why not? Because cigarettes aren't drugs. So why, then, do Democrats (and some misguided Republicans) want to place tobacco under the regulatory control of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)? Well, that's kinda like asking why lions chase wildebeests. It's just what they do; expand government. The latest effort to "regulate" tobacco comes, not surprisingly, from the King of Northeastern Liberals, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). But as Bill Lauderback of the American Conservative U nion (ACU) points out, the tobacco industry is already regulated - by the Federal Trade Commission and the Agriculture Department, not to mention by the various states and local governments. "The FDA, on the other hand, is an overburdened, hidebound, bureaucracy that already is overwhelmed by its mandate to protect the nation's food supply and assure the timely introduction of safe and effective drugs," Lauderback wrote. "New drugs take far too long to clear the agency's approval process, and the nation is facing round after round of food-borne disease epidemics such as the recent problem with spinach." Yes, between killer spinach, bird flu, mad cow and salmonella-laced peanut butter, one would think the FDA has a full plate already. Nevertheless, Kennedy, along with his trusty anti-tobacco sidekick from the House, Rep. Henry Waxman, is pushing to place both cigarettes and chewing tobacco under the control of the FDA - including $300 million's worth (to start) of annual "user fees" to be levied on tobacco companies, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers. So yes, this would be a tax hike in addition to the creation of yet another big government regulatory nightmare. Allied in the move to put Big Tobacco under the Big Thumb of Big Government is the biggest of Big Tobacco's tobacco companies, Altria (like "Prince," the cigarette company formerly known as Phillip Morris). Why? Because proposed advertising restrictions in the Kennedy-Waxman bill would solidify Altria's leading market share against its competitors. Go figure. I guess I can understand why PhilMo would support federally imposed advertising restrictions on its competitors, but it's hard to understand how a congressman who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes the First Amendment, could support them. Thank goodness they only took their oaths on a Bible and not the Koran, right? But I digress. New FDA regulation of tobacco would mean a ban on cigarette machines, no more flavored cigarettes, additional disclosures of the contents of their products (no MSG!), bigger and more graphic health warnings on the label, and a prohibition on the use of the words "light," "ultralight," and "low-tar." The FDA would also have the power to require tobacco companies to remove what it deems "harmful" ingredients and reduce nicotine. In addition, the FDA would be able to prohibit smokeless (chewing) tobacco companies from advertising that their products are a safer - not safe, safer - alternative to smoking, no matter how true that claim is or how many smokers' lives might be saved by switching to non-combustible tobacco. About the only power the FDA wouldn't have over tobacco under Kennedy-Waxman is the power to ban it altogether. But there's always tomorrow. This new power-grab by the purveyors of hyper-active Big Government should chill limited-government and constitutional conservatives to the bone. The last thing we need is an already muscular federal bureaucracy like the FDA being put on steroids, regulated or not. The Winston Salem-Journal recently summed this all up nicely in an editorial: "Regulating cigarette sales to adults has no place in a free society. Nobody's denying the health hazards of tobacco. Most of the smokers who can't quit sure don't deny the danger. But if the industry is to eventually become extinct, the forces influencing that ought to involve the simple law of supply and demand. Prohibition proved that limiting supply doesn't work. . . . Public restrictions on smoking are already limiting demand. But government intervention through FDA regulation would destroy the principle that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions in a world that is far from risk free." Ain't it the truth? What we really need is regulation of people going into a voting booth and electing government-growing lefties such as Ted Kennedy and Henry Waxman. Don't hold your breath waiting. Read
What's Fraud for Big Tobacco Is Regulation for Big Government. By Jacob Sullum. Under the bill, the FDA would have the authority to set maximum levels for specific components of tobacco smoke, based on the same sort of machine-generated numbers that public health officials and anti-smoking activists roundly condemn as not only inaccurate but fraudulent.
|
|
