FTC Tosses Guidance on Tar, Nicotine ("Smokescreen for Tobacco Cos.' Shameful Marketing Practices")

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

FTC tosses guidance on tar, nicotine in cigarettes

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 11 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The cigarette industry for 42 years has made factual claims about tar and nicotine levels based on machine testing blessed by the Federal Trade Commission.
Now the FTC has dropped the test, known as the Cambridge Filter Method, like a hot rock. The commission has rescinded guidance it issued 42 years ago, saying the test method is flawed. It also said the resulting marketing touting tar and nicotine levels could cause consumers to believe that lighter cigarettes were safer.

As a result, future advertising that lists tar levels for cigarettes won't be able to use terms such as "by FTC method." "Our action today ensures that tobacco companies may not wrap their misleading tar and nicotine ratings in a cloak of government sponsorship," said Commissioner Jon Leibowitz. "Simply put, the FTC will not be a smokescreen for tobacco companies' shameful marketing practices."
The commission rescinded the guidance by a 4-0 vote.

Under the current system, cigarettes with a tar rate above 15 milligrams per cigarette are commonly referred to by the industry as "full flavor." Cigarettes with a tar rating of less than 15 milligrams are referred to as "low" or "light." Cigarettes with a tar rate below 6 are described as "ultra low" or "ultra light."

The National Cancer Institute found that changes in cigarette design reduced the amount of tar and nicotine measured by smoking machines using the Cambridge Filter Method. However, there was no evidence those changes reduced disease for smokers. The machine doesn't take into account the way smokers adjust their behavior, such as taking more or deeper puffs to maintain nicotine levels.
"The most important aspect of this decision is that it says to consumers that tobacco industry claims relating to tar and nicotine are at best flawed and most likely misleading," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081127/ap_on_go_ot/tobacco_ftc

[Tutankhamun]

1. I always thought the desire for low nicotine cigarettes was backwards.

If people really must smoke maybe they could at least smoke less if the cigarettes contain more nicotine.

[kristopher]

3. There might be something to that.

After realizing that part of my trouble with giving up cigarettes was just a psychological aversion to the thought "I can "never" have another cigarette", I adjusted by my goal to one where I refused to carry or borrow a cigarette, but if I got to the point where I absolutely had to have a smoke, I would have to drive to a store and buy a cigar. The advantage I saw was twofold: I only had one, so I nothing hung around to tempt me, and two, there was a huge dose of nicotine involved that inevitably set my head spinning. After smoking as much of the cigar as I wanted, I would toss it.

There was the added benefit of a lingering strong and, to me and my wife, unpleasant odor.

It worked. Tobacco free for 12 years now.

[Trillo]

5. I think there's value in your method.

One of the problems with cigarettes are that they must be purchased in packs of 20. If a smoker could go to the store and only buy one or two at a time, it would eliminate them from having remaining cigarettes in a pack calling out to the smoker to light up another and another.

It has to do with the taxation stamp that's seals the entire pack, and prevents merchants from breaking them open and selling fewer cigarettes than the whole pack contains.

Since this taxation method has never changed in at least 40 years of so-called smoking-reduction strategies, I can only conclude that government agencies are not really serious about reducing smoking among the population. If they were, they'd figure out how to allow merchants to legally sell as few as one cigarette at a time.

[Hugin]

2. Only the other day, I was thinking how I hadn't seen any reference to Tar levels in tobacco.

It used to be emblazoned all over the packages and ads.

Now it's rarely mentioned.

The other secret about Full-flavored, Light, and Ultralight is in the holes punched in the paper surrounding the
filter portion. The lighter the claim the more holes. You see they don't really change the tobacco... They just
let in more air. I guess that's what they're talking about in the article about 'cigarette design'.

[onehandle]

4. Hopefully Obama's administration will get back on track on action against the tobacco companies.

Howard Waxman and the Clinton administration were starting to kick their asses.

A pack of cigarettes in much of Europe is over ten dollars. I think that's coming for a start.

With Bush gone, Waxman will get the companies back in his sights.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Yes they are about $10 a pack

and they've got just about every warning you could imagine printed on the packs apart from "Eventually These May Fuck You"