Tobacco May Be Put Under FDA Control

[mcscajun]

Source: Associated Press (via New York Times)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate panel is nearing a vote on a proposal to put tobacco under Food and Drug Administration regulation despite objections that such a move would only entrench the market position of the nation's No. 1 tobacco company.

The bill, which was expected to be approved Wednesday by the Senate health committee and is identical to House legislation, would give the FDA the same authority over cigarettes and other tobacco products that the regulatory agency now has over drugs, food, medical devices and other consumer products.

Specifically, it would let the FDA regulate the levels of tar, nicotine and other harmful components of tobacco products. Cigarette smoke alone contains some 4,000 chemicals, more than 40 of which are known to cause cancer. It also would restrict advertising.

-snip-

Philip Morris USA, maker of Marlboro, the nation's top-selling cigarette brand, supports the bill. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and others oppose the legislation, saying it would help cement Philip Morris as the market leader.

-snip-


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Safer-Cigarette.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

---

Okay...they say "move" -- has anyone heard if this removes Tobacco from the ATF? Or does this become a dual agency responsibility?

We all know how well those work. :sarcasm:
Plus, we all trust the FDA to get down and dirty in enforcing regulations, right? :sarcasm:

Philip Morris (Marlboro) supports the bill; President Bush and the head of the FDA, as well as R.J. Reynolds, another tobacco producer, oppose the bill. Huh?

I find this story lacking in the "what gives?" factor; specifically, what motivates Bush's and the FDA's opposition, and how would such a bill "cement Philip Morris as the market leader"? Is it the restriction on advertising? The bill does propose to restrict cigarette/tobacco advertising (even further than now); I find that a good thing, anyway.

[cobalt1999]

1. I agree, it's not an in depth article.

I don't understand how it cements Philip Morris's position. Also, cigarette recipes which contain dozens of things besides tobacco such as strawberries, are highly secretive. Wouldn't FDA regulations require those recipes to be made public?

[youngdem]

4. Because marketing restrictions under FDA guidelines would likely freeze their market shares

Additionally, launching a new cigarette under the FDA would be difficult, since it would be difficult to safety test. And regulated as a drug, free giveaways to new young smokers would likely be banned, cutting off another avenue of growth for the company.

Screw em, but that's probably what they are afraid of.

[Kagemusha]

2. It's considered longstanding fact that moving it to FDA means, no ATF jurisdiction

So I assume that would be fully the case here.

[mcscajun]

7. Oh goodie. Does that mean ATF can now mean

"Alcohol, Terrorism and Firearms"?

I was surprised (not shocked, nothing government does can shock me anymore) to see that On the ATF webpage, there was this Mission Statement: "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is a principal law enforcement agency within the United States Department of Justice dedicated to preventing terrorism, reducing violent crime, and protecting our Nation. The men and women of ATF perform the dual responsibilities of enforcing Federal criminal laws and regulating the firearms and explosives industries. We are committed to working directly, and through partnerships, to investigate and reduce crime involving firearms and explosives, acts of arson, and illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products."

All they have to do is change one word in their name, and drop the last three words in the Mission Statement; they're ready.

[denverbill]

3. Seems a bit odd that these companies WANT to be the largest purveyors of death,

like that's something to take pride in. It's especially odd in light of the fact that they run 'anti-smoking' ads, encouraging people to QUIT smoking.

"Please don't smoke. Smoking is dangerous to your health. If you do smoke, and want to quit, we'll try to help you. But if you do smoke and don't want to quit, use OUR brand of health-crippling products, because they are the BEST!"

[damntexdem]

5. That's exactly where it should be, and would have been ...

had a GOP Congress not overruled Clinton's FDA. It had decided that it had clear jurisdiction because of evidence that tobacco companies had manipulated the nicotine content of cigarettes, so that nicotine was being used as a drug and included in planned dosages in consumer products.

[mcscajun]

6. Thank you. That certainly clarifies part of the situation.

:hi: