creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum
15 Feb 2012
Obama's Fiscal Fakery: How Can You Pay Down the National Debt by Building It Up?

Decrying "a decade of deficits" on Monday, President Obama declared that "my budget lays out a … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Bogus Busts: New York City Continues Its Illegal Crackdown on Pot Smokers

Thirty-five years ago, New York's legislature decriminalized marijuana possession. Numbers released last week … Read More.

1 Feb 2012
Complexity Compounded

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama used billionaire investor Warren Buffett's secretary,… Read More.

FDA-Approved Cancer Sticks

Share Comment

Last week the House Energy and Commerce Committee overwhelmingly approved legislation that would authorize the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products. Since the FDA is usually portrayed as a benevolent (if occasionally sleepy) watchdog, you might assume the bill is all about consumer protection. But it's actually aimed at consumer prevention , which is not quite the same thing.

A consumer protection bill that reduced competition, raised prices, restricted choice, blocked information and made products more hazardous could not really be counted as a success. Yet the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which has broad support in both houses of Congress, promises to do all these things in an effort to discourage consumption.

The act imposes new regulatory burdens and advertising restrictions that will help industry leader Philip Morris, which supports the bill, maintain its market-share advantage over smaller cigarette manufacturers, which oppose the bill. The compliance costs and reduced competition are likely to raise prices. This counts as an advantage if your goal is "smoking prevention" but a disadvantage if your goal is to buy a pack of cheap smokes.

Likewise, the bill restricts variety, which consumers like but public-health paternalists do not. Under the act, smokers will be allowed to choose any cigarette flavor they like, as long as it's menthol (which happens to be the one flavor Philip Morris uses). Although people above the age of 18 have been known to enjoy the occasional clove cigarette, Camel Crema or Kool Caribbean Chill, these flavored varieties have been deemed too kid friendly and therefore inconsistent with the goal of smoking prevention.

While added flavors (except for menthol) are unambiguously evil, toxins and carcinogens may have a positive role to play if they discourage people from smoking by raising the specter of cancer, heart disease and emphysema. Hence the bill instructs the FDA to approve a "modified risk tobacco product" only if it would "benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products."

To make that judgment, the FDA is supposed to consider "the increased or decreased likelihood that persons who do not use tobacco products will start using the tobacco product that is the subject of the application" as well as "the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products who would otherwise stop using such products will switch to the tobacco product that is the subject of the application." In other words, the FDA could decide to keep a demonstrably safer cigarette off the market because it might attract new smokers or dissuade current smokers from quitting.

Worse, an existing product can be deemed a "modified risk tobacco product" subject to FDA approval if its manufacturer indicates on the package, in advertising, or in any other form that it's less hazardous than cigarettes.

If an executive at a smokeless tobacco company mentioned in a TV interview or an op-ed piece that his products were much safer than cigarettes, which is indisputably true , those products could suddenly be considered illegal.

Here the concern is not fraud but accurate information that consumers might "misuse" (by, for example, switching from cigarettes to oral snuff instead of giving up tobacco altogether). As far as this bill's authors are concerned, you can't handle the truth.

The bill not only authorizes the prohibition of safer tobacco products and the censorship of potentially lifesaving information about relative risks, it gives the FDA permission to make cigarettes more dangerous by ordering reductions in nicotine content. Such a mandate, aimed at making cigarettes less attractive to new smokers, would force current smokers to absorb higher levels of toxins and carcinogens to obtain their usual doses of nicotine.

According to its supporters, this bill, backed by the biggest tobacco company, will enable the FDA to protect smokers from Big Tobacco. Who will protect smokers from the FDA?

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine, and his work appears in the new Reason anthology "Choice" (BenBella Books). To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
With everyone in bed together and telling we, the people, to bend over, our cries were ignored. They segregated us and raised the price of smokes as they prepared to do their dirty deed. Our choice was they use their power to regulate and control the real hazards to our health, companies that foul the air we breathe and the water we drink, and the soil in which we grow our food with their toxic waste. We'll choose whether or not we want to be around cigarette smoke. This impotent federal government can't win any real wars; they went to bed with big business and the war on drugs is a joke, so they justify their impotence by launching another assault on personal freedoms. Black lung, anyone.? What, no coal mine for you? No, how about some asbestos where you live and work, or oil and pharmaceutical waste in your water or your soil depleted of minerals? Maybe you'd like to know what that dust is all over your community from the factory in your neighborhood? Forget about it. The Feds have taken away your "right to know" what's in that dust in the air but they will regulate your cigarettes. Seriously, the big companies can spew toxic waste all day and you do not have the right to know what poisons they are releasing into the atmosphere. The Feds won't shut em down and will not allow us to shut down the businesses polluting our air, land, and water, but they will shut down regulate and restrict you from making your own choices. Now, they will sell this cock and bull as a concession to smokers? The FDA continues to try to wrest away our choices, including trying to regulate our choices of vitamins and supplements and how and from whom and how much we buy. I just want the Feds out of my pocket to allow me the freedom to make choices and spend my money where and how I choose. Choice being the operative term of a Free America.
Comment: #1
Posted by: liz
Wed Apr 9, 2008 5:44 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Jacob Sullum
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012

21 Oct 2009 Myocardial Infractions

9 Jun 2010 License to Kill: Obama Blurs Line Between Warfare and Summary Execution

29 Oct 2008 You Choose, You Lose