story
laying down the rules for tobacco
originally aired October 16, 2003
In 1964 the US Surgeon General first issued a report documenting negative health effects linked to smoking. Doctors have continued to pile on more information about the harmful nature of cigarettes ever since. But even with all that evidence the tobacco industry has largely escaped serious government regulation. The situation started to turn during the 1990s when a number of lawsuits targeted Big Tobacco for misleading the public. And now – almost 40-years since that landmark Surgeon General’s report – comprehensive government regulation of tobacco is almost here. As Greg Dahlmann reports, there are just a few obstacles left.
6:49 | listen: RealAudio · mp3
To get a sense of how much things have changed during the last four decades... all you have to do is check out the web sites of the major tobacco companies. The consumer information listed on the sites actually tells people flat out that smoking is unhealthy. And if you don’t smoke, you shouldn’t start. Remember... this is the same industry that sent its leaders to Congress to testify that nicotine wasn’t addictive.
Mark Berlind is a vice president and legislative counsel for Altria – the parent company of tobacco giant Philip Morris. Berlind says his company decided over the last few years that arguing about smoking wasn’t helping them and it was time to move forward. That means looking at Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco.
{MB: regulation necessary} :25
“The American public clearly wants it. They perceive the tobacco industry as unregulated and in need of government oversight. And form the industry’s perspective, there are huge array of areas where there are not enough clear rules guiding the business practices that should be engaged in, which leaves companies in an awkward position of having to make their own decisions where the government should be stepping in.”
Berlind says Philip Morris is interested in seeing the government lay out clear rules on issues like ingredient disclosure, manufacturing practices and the use of terms such as “light” or “low-tar”.
The public health community’s response to Philip Morris’ recent acceptance of regulation is something along the lines of: it’s about time. Matthew Myers is president of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. He’s says the current situation makes no sense.
{MM: makes no sense} :15
“If a manufacturer puts a new ingredient in macaroni and cheese they have to test it for safety, put it in on the label and prove that it’s safe. If they put a known cancer causing agent in a tobacco product they neither have to test it or tell anyone.”
This isn’t the first push to regulate tobacco products. In 1994... then F-D-A commissioner David Kessler asserted the government had the right to regulate cigarettes as a medical device. The thinking being that tobacco companies had engineered cigarettes to be delivery systems for nicotine. The tobacco companies sued the F-D-A and the case ultimately ended up at the Supreme Court in the year 2000. The high court ruled the F-D-A did not have the authority to regulate tobacco.
The current push for regulation is coming not from the F-D-A... but from Congress... in the form of a bill that would amend the existing law behind the agency. Dr. Michael Eriksen is director of the public health institute at Georgia State University... and he was head of the Office on Tobacco and Health at the Centers for Disease Control during most of the 1990s.
{ME: expand jurisdiction} :15
“So, the current effort is rather than trying to fit tobacco into the extant FDA jurisdiction, the intent is to expand the FDA jurisdiction to explicitly deal with tobacco products.”
This idea of creating a separate category for tobacco has gotten a warm reception from both the public health community and the tobacco industry. So, when you add in companion legislation that would compensate tobacco farmers for their declining income... regulation of tobacco was starting to look like a sure thing. And then a few weeks ago... it was stubbed out.
What happened depends upon whom you talk to. Phillip Morris says the public health community wrecked things by pushing for a provision that would have allowed the F-D-A to make cigarettes so unappealing, it could essentially ban any sort of cigarette people might actually want to buy. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids’ Matthew Myers says that isn’t the case.
{MM: not a ban} :26
“The tobacco industry knows that no one is seeking to ban the sale of cigarettes to adults. That’s a red herring they’ve thrown out for 40 years to avoid regulation. What the real issue is whether the federal government is going to have the same authority over tobacco products like it has over other products to ensure that they’re no more hazardous than necessary, to ensure that consumers are effectively informed and to ensure that children are not the target of the tobacco industry.”
On many of those points... Philip Morris’s Mark Berlind says his company agrees with the people in public health. But he says no one’s concept of ideal legislation is going to pass Congress... and the public health community has to be willing to bend.
{MB: can’t get everything} :31
“Nobody in this process is going to get everything they want. And we strongly believe that everybody is going to have to compromise. We have certainly made enormous compromises in terms of what we’re expecting to see what will pass Congress. Tobacco farmers have certainly made compromises. And what we’re looking to see... and what hasn’t been demonstrated by the public health side is... they have to be willing to make some compromises.”
As Phillip Morris and public health advocates go back and forth over who should compromise what... the other tobacco companies are complicating the issuing even more. These companies say F-D-A regulation of tobacco plays right into the hands of industry leader Phillip Morris. Craig Fischell is a spokesman for R-J Reynolds tobacco.
{CF: would help PM} :30
“The industry is already operating under significant marketing restrictions. And we felt that this bill would essentially stifle our ability to compete for the business of adult smokers. And when you look at that, what it would do is give the large and growing brands the advantage in the marketplace. And when you come back to that point, it’s not surprising that Philip Morris is the only company that actively supports regulation.”
Fischell says R-J Reynolds isn’t against F-D-A regulation in theory... it just wants to make sure it can still compete against Philip Morris.
The Georgia State University Institute of Public Health’s Michael Eriksen says it shouldn’t matter how regulation affects the market share of individual companies. He says regulation of tobacco will come about at some point... and the real issue is deciding how it’s going to happen.
{ME: issue is who decides} :26
“What the public health community wants to see is that the scientists who don’t make cigarettes, who don’t have a vested interest in it, are the one who specify the requirements for the regulation and it’s not dictated by the industry, if anything because of the shameful history of the industry in deceiving the public, smokers and the public health community.”
Eriksen says the question of who sets the standards will become even more important in the future when tobacco companies roll out what they’re touting as reduced risk cigarettes.
So, what’s the time line here? Only the Congressional magic 8-ball knows. Even as F-D-A regulation of tobacco is closer than ever... neither side seems willing to budge.
For the Health Show... I’m Greg Dahlmann.