May 30, 2007
Is it Time for the FDA to Regulate Tobacco?
An editorial in the Daytona Beach News-Journal is pretty direct in making its point. “It boggles the imagination that the FDA can pull a drug like Celebrex after it is linked to 10 deaths, but lacks the power to mitigate the hazards of tobacco.”
According to the editorial, a number of laws being considered on Capitol Hill would transfer oversight of tobacco products to the Food and Drug Administration. Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John Cornyn (R-TX) and Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Tom Davis (R-VA) introduced similar bills back in February.
The legislation now being considered seeks to eliminate any possibility that FDA jurisdiction could be overturned in court. Back in 1996, the FDA asserted it had the responsibility to regulate tobacco under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Tobacco companies sued the government and won a case before the Supreme Court, which ruled Congress needed to enact legislation that specifically charged the FDA with regulating tobacco before it could do so.
If proposed legislation were passed, tobacco companies would be required to provide a great deal more detail on tests regarding new products while likely having to provide more detailed information on the risks associated with the consumption of the product.
Legislation that would move authority to regulate tobacco to the FDA has been strongly endorsed by a number of health organizations including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and others.
Interestingly, Altria also supports the Kennedy/Cornyn and Waxman/Davis bills. The other tobacco companies do not.
Discussion Questions: Should oversight for tobacco reside at the Food and Drug Administration instead of the Department of Agriculture? How would you expect such a move to affect sales of tobacco products at retail?
Discussion Questions
Poll
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
How Can Retailers Crack the Gen Z ‘Riddle’?
Gen Z is becoming an increasingly important consumer demographic, but an elusive one to map. How…Does Bath & Body Works’ Scented Holiday Campaign Pass the Sniff Test?
Bath & Body Works is kicking off a new campaign with scent being at the fore…Which Tech Will Solve In-Store Inventory Woes?
Three major tech lineups are looking to solve retail inventory problems. Which is most suited?
Nicotine and caffeine are both habit-forming drugs that should be regulated carefully. I see people giving caffeinated energy drinks to their toddlers. Perhaps nicotine and caffeine should simply be banned, except as prescription drugs. Of course, if they are banned, tobacco, coffee and carbonated soft drink sales will plummet. Giving the FDA the right to regulate nicotine = no regulation.
As long as the money from tobacco is so strong, there is little chance of doing the right thing. Politicians are always looking for more dollars to spend and the thought of giving up as large a pot of money as tobacco would be unthinkable. It might be interesting to let the FDA try their luck at the tobacco problem but we would probably just be setting them up to fail like the USDA has. Until we can find a replacement revenue stream we most likely are stuck with it.
The difference with tobacco is that your smoking can impact my health if I have to be around you. The act of consuming caffeine or alcohol does not impact the health of nearby people–your drink doesn’t affect my liver. I could care less about the rest–if you want to kill yourself with cigarettes, be my guest. But because smoking has an “environmental” impact that affects other people, it should be regulated.
Personally, I have an issue with drugstores and others that push healthy approaches to living while at the same time selling cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. I’d make a point of shopping a store that discontinued the whole lot. As it is, our family spends a great deal of our grocery dollars in stores such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s that don’t sell tobacco.
I have no more confidence in the FDA or politicians standing up to tobacco lobbyists than anyone else writing in today but in the spirit of, if you don’t try you don’t get anywhere, I would say go for it and it’s about time, too.
Certainly one can – and many here have – advanced arguments for banning (the smoking of) tobacco altogether (though as more and more things are labeled “dangerous in any amount,” the old cliche about tobacco being the “only product that is lethal if used as intended” must be discarded). But to call this an effort to “regulate” is at best disingenuous – indeed, the very fact that tobacco CANNOT be made “safe” belies the premise for FDA control. The ultimate purpose is tobacco prohibition.
The tobacco issue is clearly a difficult and complex matter that will likely end up with the FDA regulating nicotine as a controlled substance. Philip Morris (Altria) first broached the subject of FDA oversight because it realized tobacco regulation was inevitable. Its position was, “we can either be with them and help shape that regulation or go against them and endure their wrath.” They chose the former and it was a brilliant strategic move for a number of reasons.
First, they are conceding that the product is dangerous and “giving in” to certain government demands. This will likely work out in their favor should there be further attempts at class-action suits once the FDA gains control of tobacco. Second, their competitors are against them on this issue. Despite their personal gains by supporting the FDA, Altria is probably gaining additional points with FDA officials, the same people that will be responsible for monitoring tobacco. And lastly, they will have some say in how tobacco laws are drawn up. This is a far cry from where the oversight issue began prior to the 1998 $206 billion Master Settlement Agreement.
But the issue is complex because it opens the door for additional government regulation of other “dangerous” substances, such as caffeine, trans-fats and high-fructose corn syrup. All of those things can be considered addictive or harmful to kids and adults. Will a government victory over tobacco provide the impetus to target caffeine and trans-fats? The answer is probably.
Refined sugar and alcohol are also addictive. The point really is that of all these addictive–or, for the more conservative, habit-forming and therefore potentially addictive–products, tobacco is the only one that used as intended (as opposed to being abused by the end user) will kill you or at the very least cause your health to be significantly compromised. Beyond that, it is also the only product which–again if used as intended by the manufacturer–represents a health threat to people close to the consumer who aren’t consuming the product themselves. Finally, smoking is one of the few behaviors parents are allowed to practice which clearly represents a threat to their children. So, what’s the question again?
Let’s see…which is more valuable to the human race: 1) The trillions made by tobacco companies and the Government from selling the stuff or 2)the hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives cut short because of tobacco?
So far the Government and lobbyists are saying let’s take the money! I don’t even want to get started on this topic because sometimes the stupidity and lack of even minimal reason is just too much to bear. Thank goodness there wasn’t an item about guns today–I’d have to go lie down for a while.
You don’t have to look too far to find hypocrisy in how government decides what to regulate, and what not. The Nicotine vs. Celebrex example is just one of many case in points that get lost in crossroads and erroneous zones. So much of what gets regulated, and what does not, has more to do with factors such as politics, lobbies, jobs, popular vs. unpopular issues, the intensity or lack of media coverage, political correctness, etc. If you are hungry for an entire buffet of other examples of hypocrisies, ironies, and inconsistencies in what we regulate, and what not, head to the closest airport, take a flight, and count the ways. Better take a calculator with you to do it.
How about the government keeping its hands out of the matter altogether?
People know the risks. Let people decide whether to take them or not.