U.S. makes new push for graphic warning labels on cigarettes | TribLIVE.com
News

U.S. makes new push for graphic warning labels on cigarettes

Associated Press
1545464_web1_1545464-f9ee364eeb04468a9fec93bacac14018
FDA/AP
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed new graphic warnings that would appear on cigarettes.
1545464_web1_1545464-2533151ca3ad4ae3a7dd822be3706c57
FDA/AP
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed new graphic warnings that would appear on cigarettes.

WASHINGTON — U.S. health officials are making a new attempt at adding graphic images to cigarette packets to discourage and Americans from lighting up. If successful, it would be the first change to U.S. cigarette warnings in 35 years.

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday proposed 13 new warnings that would appear on all cigarettes, including images of cancerous neck tumors, diseased lungs and feet with amputated toes.

Other color illustrations would warn smokers that cigarettes can cause heart disease, impotence and diabetes. The labels would take up half of the front of cigarette packages and include text warnings, such as “Smoking causes head and neck cancer.” The labels would also appear on tobacco advertisements.

The current smaller text warnings on the side of U.S. cigarette packs have not been updated since 1984. They warn that smoking can cause lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. These warnings “go unnoticed” and are effectively “invisible,” the FDA said it its announcement.

The FDA’s previous attempt was defeated in court in 2012 on free speech grounds. A panel of judges later upheld the decision, siding with tobacco companies that the agency couldn’t force cigarettes to carry grisly images, including cadavers, diseased lungs and cancerous mouth sores.

FDA’s tobacco director Mitch Zeller said the new effort is supported by research documenting how the warnings will educate the public about lesser-known smoking harms, such as bladder cancer.

“While the public generally understands that cigarette smoking is dangerous, there are significant gaps in their understanding of all of the diseases and conditions associated with smoking,” Zeller said. If the agency is sued, he added, “we strongly believe this will hold up under any legal challenges.”

Reynolds American, maker of Camel and Newport cigarettes, said it supports public awareness efforts on tobacco, “but the manner in which those messages are delivered to the public cannot run afoul of the First Amendment.” Reynolds was one of five tobacco companies that challenged the FDA’s original warning labels.

The nation’s largest tobacco company, Altria, said it will “carefully review the proposed rule.” The company, which makes Marlboro, was not part of the industry lawsuit.

Nearly 120 countries around the world have adopted the larger, graphic warning labels. Studies from those countries suggest the image-based labels publicize smoking risks and encourage smokers to quit.

Current U.S. cigarette labels don’t reflect the enormous toll of smoking, said Geoff Fong, who heads the International Tobacco Control Project.

“This is a deadly product,” said Fong, who studies anti-tobacco policies at Canada’s University of Waterloo. “We have more prominent warnings on many other products that don’t pose even a fraction of the risk that cigarettes do.”

Canada became the first country to put graphic warnings on cigarettes in 2000.

Smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States, even though smoking rates have been declining for decades. Approximately 14% of U.S. adults smoke, according to government figures. That’s down from the more than 40% of adults who smoked in the mid-60s.

Under the 2009 law that first gave the FDA oversight of the tobacco industry, Congress ordered the agency to develop graphic warning labels that would cover the top half of cigarette packs. The FDA proposed nine graphic labels, including images of rotting teeth and a smoker wearing an oxygen mask.

But a three-judge panel ruled that the FDA’s plan violated companies’ right to free speech. The judges said the images were unconstitutional because they were “crafted to evoke a strong emotional response,” rather than to educate or warn consumers.

The FDA said it would develop a new batch of labels, but when new ones didn’t appear, eight health groups sued the agency in 2016 for the “unreasonable delay.”

Under a court order this year, the FDA was required to propose new labels by August, with final versions by next March.

Categories: Business
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.