Bill Would Put Tobacco Under FDA Control

[struggle4progress]

Source: Washington Post

Under Legislation, Agency Could Require Removal of Harmful Chemicals, Additives

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 4, 2009; Page A02
In what appears to be the best chance since public health groups started pushing for it in the 1970s, Congress is poised to regulate tobacco, a product linked to 1,200 deaths each day but sold largely unfettered for centuries.

Legislation that the House Energy and Commerce Committee will take up today would place tobacco under the control of the Food and Drug Administration. Among other things, the bill would restrict the ways tobacco companies market cigarettes, require them to disclose the ingredients in their products and place larger warning labels on packages, and give the FDA the authority to require the removal of harmful chemicals and additives from cigarettes.

The legislation also seeks to crack down on techniques tobacco companies have used to attract children and teenagers, making it illegal to produce cigarettes infused with strawberry, grape, cloves and other sweet flavors. And it would prohibit tobacco makers from using the terms "low tar" and "light" when describing their products, suggesting a health benefit that scientists say does not exist.

Still, some critics say the bill, largely the product of years of negotiation between cigarette giant Philip Morris and the advocacy group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, does not go far enough ...

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303661.html?hpid=moreheadlines

---

UPDATE:House Panel Votes To Give FDA Power To Oversee Tobacco
March 04, 2009: 06:24 PM ET
By Jared A. Favole
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- ... "This legislation will give FDA the authority to prevent the dangerous and all-too prevalent marketing and sales of tobacco to kids," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D.-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Waxman introduced the bill last year, where it was passed by the full House but got held up in the Senate.

Thirty-nine members of the committee voted to approve the bill, and 13 voted against it. The vote was along party lines, with Democrats supporting the bill and Republicans against it. The bill needs to complete a lot of steps before it becomes law. Waxman said he hopes the bill will come to a full House vote in the next few weeks. It's unclear what will happen in the senate.

Several Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee voted against the bill, saying the bill would give people the perception that FDA approves the use of tobacco products. Critics also said the FDA's handling of recent drug scandals and food outbreaks involving the bacteria salmonella show the agency doesn't have the resources and can't handle the responsibility of overseeing another area of the public's health ...

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903041824DOWJONESDJONLINE000975_FORTUNE5.htm

Plan to Regulate Tobacco Industry Passes U.S. Panel (Update2)

... All of the Democrats at the panel’s meeting voted in favor of the legislation, and they were joined by six Republicans. The measure now moves to the full House. Similar legislation has been proposed in the Senate by Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVsap.w0OZA8&refer=us

Altria Supports Revived FDA Tobacco Measure Opposed by Reynolds
By Chris Burritt and Nicole Gaouette

... The bill would ban all tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds; prohibit free giveaways of non- tobacco items with the purchase of a tobacco product and restrict tobacco vending machines to adult-only facilities.

Waxman would also require larger and more specific health cautions on cigarette packs, with the warnings covering 50 percent of the front and rear panels of the package.

The Federal Trade Commission currently regulates tobacco labels and marketing to ensure they aren’t misleading or deceptive, authority that Waxman’s legislation would shift to the FDA.

The bill would also give the FDA authority to require recordkeeping and tracking to fight cigarette smuggling and allow states and localities to regulate the time, place and manner of tobacco use.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aLxtmmYiwlAI&refer=us

House panel approves FDA tobacco oversight
Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:13pm GM
By Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - ... The bill calls for a separate FDA center funded by user fees from tobacco companies to monitor ingredients, inspect manufacturing facilities, and oversee marketing. It does not allow FDA oversight of tobacco farmers ...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPoliticsNews/idUKTRE5237AL20090304

[rpannier]

1. I have some mixed feelings about this and it comes from this line...

Critics also said the FDA's handling of recent drug scandals and food outbreaks involving the bacteria salmonella show the agency doesn't have the resources and can't handle the responsibility of overseeing another area of the public's health

Is the government actually going to give the FDA real resources to monitor not just tobacco, but everything else it's supposed to be monitoring? (this includes the Sept of Agriculture)

If it's not, then don't add it to the list.
People, often foolishly, believe that because it's been inspected by a federal agency that it is some how safe, or at the very least 'safer'.

I read somewhere about 10 years ago that the Dept of Agriculture inspects about 5% of all beef.
5 frickin percent.
Yet, it's considered safe.

Put money into inspection of food, drugs, etc and then do real inspections.

[sandnsea]

2. But every plant participates

They pay fees for the inspectors and they show up once or twice a week, iirc. That may mean they only see 5% of the food at the plant, but they see the plant conditions regularly. I don't know how that peanut butter plant got away with what they did.

I don't think toughening some of these laws would require more inspectors. You can take random cigarettes and test them and I will bet there will be watchdog groups doing that. Maybe if the penalties are stiff enough, they will comply to avoid more bad publicity.

[rpannier]

3. That is very true and will help

I just don't want this to turn into more show than substance.

Which happens too much when it comes to health and safety for some reason.

[caseymoz]

4. It wasn't always like that, though.

We can't refuse to put in essential regulations on the grounds that we won't put the money into enforcing them. I remember a far more active FDA. In the 60s they were looking at aspirin for it's safety. Aspirin, of all things, and they were considering making it prescription.

You might have a bad opinion of that, but the point is, the agency was doing its job then. Only after Reagan did it become the disaster we see today.

[David Dunham]

5. Dumb idea. The FDA should focus on drug safety issues.

[rucognizant]

6. HUH?

How about food? You don't generally need drugs to live but you do have to eat!

[caseymoz]

16. delete

[JerseygirlCT]

9. Are you saying that you don't think tobacco is a drug?

You're kidding yourself if that's the case.

[caseymoz]

15. delete

[damntexdem]

32. It IS a drug. That is the industry's own doing, too.

In fact, tobacco products are an industry's means of delivering a highly-addictive drug. Tobacco addicts are fooling themselves if they think not.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. It is. And you're right. nt

[Bandit]

12. What do you think tobacco is, a helicopter?

It is IMO the most addictive drug available and definitely needs regulating much much more than it currently is.

[caseymoz]

17. delete

[Igel]

26. Once I was bored waiting for a prescription so I wandered.

Did you know there are NaCl--salt--supplements that are regulated by the FDA?

Yep, salt is an over-the-counter drug if it's sold for medicinal uses. Now, given the extreme amount of hypertension in the US, how many people die because of too much salt?

Shouldn't salt be regulated more closely? Have maximum levels of salt in foods? Make sure that the table salt you buy isn't misused, perhaps by regulating how much you can buy? True, people who pickle their own veggies might have problems, but they're a minority.


Some things are just silly.

[caseymoz]

44. First, you know that would be futile.

NaCl is the most abundant mineral on earth. It's cheap spit. What are makers going to adulterate with? Second, it doesn't drive people against all warnings to consume until it kills them. Third, it's not like it's going to become contaminated with bacteria.

If it's regulated at all by the FDA, it would be for labeling.

In other words, it's a very bad comparison to tobacco.

[damntexdem]

31. It IS a drug safety issue -- nicotine is a drug.

Kessler pointed this out in the 90s: the tobacco companies had long been manipulating the nicotine content of cigarettes, so they had effectively created products that were delivering a drug.

With drugs, the FDA's mandate goes to both safety and effectiveness. So, drug safety is at issue. But the effectiveness issue could arise too, depending on what cigarettes are alleged to be effective at doing.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. That's a good point

But one that should be able to be fixed with real oversight and a real idea about what resources they'd need. Heck, add another tax to tobacco to pay for it. (Go ahead smokers, and holler - I simply don't care).

My suspicion is that the lack of oversight from the Dept of Agriculture and the FDA had a great deal to do with a hands-off attitude of the last administration. (Heckuva job guys, remember?)

So I'm not sure it's JUST about resources. Probably a mixture of resources and the right leadership and expectations.

[caseymoz]

18. If tobacco becomes overtaxed, we'll get a very active illegal market.

And don't think tobacco companies wouldn't "go rogue." The more they could undersell the legal market, the more we'll have to concern ourselves with the black market.

You also don't want to have people growing tobacco clandestinely. It's extremely bad for the soil.

[Winterblues]

21. I think before any huge black market develops people would just quit.

It is one thing to want a drug that makes one high but to want so desperately a drug that does nothing but harm is ridiculous and people will recognize that as the price goes up.

[SOS]

23. The black market already rules the cig biz in NYC

The black market rules the cigarette business.
The State and City raised taxes so high that a pack now costs $9.50 and will go to $11 in April.

In the gray market, people order from Indian reservations. Technically not allowed without paying the tax, but people send money orders.
The black market has independents who make runs to the South and fill the car trunk with cases of cigarettes.
And the really BIG business is now controlled by organized crime.
They buy (or hijack) untaxed open cartons, take them to warehouse and put on counterfeit tax stamps.

And City estimates show that only 14% of smokers have actually quit as a result of $100 cartons.

[caseymoz]

38. That's not the nature of addiction, and nicotine is the most addicting substance there is.

And it's "high" if you could call it that, involves lower areas of the brain that may not register pleasure consciously, but they certainly do drive a person's mind as much as any other addiction. It's a pretty unique high, and one that does not show at the surface.

If you begin to threaten their supply, addicts just get resentful. They'll buy on the black market just out of rebellion against authority. That will be one of the rationalizations.

[damntexdem]

33. And since murder is illegal, assassination is a black market item.

And it has been very-active as such in the U.S. So we obviously should decriminalize murder -- right?

[caseymoz]

39. You don't quite understand, this has more economic and social consequences.

People will still murder when it's illegal, yes. But making murder illegal doesn't lead to murders and maimings, in other words, it doesn't make things worse.

First, I'm not saying tobacco shouldn't be taxed-- I'm not an anti-tax person; I'm saying it shouldn't be overtaxed. You're talking not only diminishing returns, but toxic returns.

Look at the War on Drugs and what happens when a person's weekly drug hunger cost hundreds. Now, apply that to tobacco. Except in this case, there's no great deep social onus to the drug (just like alcohol in prohibition), and smugglers and thieves could actually undersell the legal market and still make huge profits, or it could actually turn to clandestine production and still make a killing.

The loss of tax revenue as will be the least of what will go wrong as people turn to underworld to supply them. Like the War on Drugs, it will enrich criminals, and like prohibition, will bring ordinary people in contact with criminals-- weekly. Like prohibition, associating with criminals will lose any social onus. In that situation, the potential to corrupt society and government, and to actually buy political parties will be really high.

[alfredo]

25. That was the bush FDA. He gutted the agency.

[caseymoz]

40. Not just Bush, he just took it a little further than Reagan did.

Reagan and Bush I really diminished the FDA before Dubya got to it. It didn't recover under Clinton. Did you notice when pharmaceutical companies first began to advertise?

[alfredo]

42. They've always been there, but yeah, they really took to TV and have been

very good at marketing their balms and potions.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. The agency will need to double in size

from 10,000 to at least 20,000 to cover the pile-on of duties.

Why the hell does Congress ignore ATF and not give them this activity? They need to remove the "T" (Tobacco) out of ATF's name if they are not doing any monitoring of this product, before and after processing. :eyes:

[harmonicon]

10. but I thought the ATF was formed to murder religious cult members

That's what they're for, right?

Ok, fine. I agree with you. However, it is about a million ways hilarious to have those three things, which have nothing to do with one another, lumped together in the same agency.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. I don't see why those are lumped together anyway

It seems a very strange combination, to me.

Alcohol and tobacco are both drugs.

Firearms are another whole category of things.

[caseymoz]

19. For one thing, the ATF is a bit of an absurdity to begin with.

Three things that don't belong together. It's an agency that should actually be cut and re-assigned to other agencies. And you'd have to increase staff there, too. They're a law enforcement agency, and they have even less capital resources and expertise to handle this assignment than the FDA.

[struggle4progress]

22. ATF's tobacco-related responsibilities seem to involve smuggling and similar crimes

... 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 ... http://www.atf.gov/about/mission.htm

[damntexdem]

35. I thought drug smuggling was a responsibility of the CIA.

Oh, you mean STOPPING the smuggling. ;-)

[damntexdem]

34. They have plenty of roles regarding tobacco -- but not drug regulation.

Would you give regulatory approval tasks for medical uses of opiates to the DEA?

Enforcement of illegal usages is one thing -- regulatory approval and oversight is another.

[EvilAL]

13. Don't feel bad,

Where I live in New Brunswick Canada they can't even display cigarettes anymore. Unless it's in a place that only allows adults. You walk into a corner store or whatever and all the smokes are hidden behind these pull down covers and they open it if you ask for smokes. I went into a tobacco shop one time and asked the guy when I was leaving why they had "19 years of age and older only, unless accompanied by an adult" in front. He said because we don't hide our cigarettes. They had fuckin cigars all over the place, bongs, hash pipes and all kinds of stuff.. but ya had to be 19 because of the smokes. I had to laugh. I think it's like that in Quebec now too, maybe all of Canada for all I know.. I think it's fucking retarded. Tobacco is a vice and harmful to me, but I fuckin smoke it anyway, I can't smoke anywhere there might be a non-smoker because then I'm an asshole for smoking on front of them. Enough is enough..

[eggplant]

14. It's not about inspection

It's about regulation. Once it is classified as a drug, the FDA can impose strict rules about advertisising, packaging, marketing, additives, you name it.

[bemildred]

20. Good idea.

Make it legal, regulated, OTC, with limited "marketing". It's to be allowed but not encouraged.

[LostinVA]

28. David Kessler, the Republican head of FDA under Clinton, agrees

He wrote a very good book about this.

[Romulox]

24. If tobacco is regulated by the FDA, it must be banned.

It has no therapeutic value, and is much too dangerous to allow over the counter sales.

[damntexdem]

36. Hey, give the regulatory authority to the FDA and let them make the judgments.

Not that I disagree about what they might very-likely find.

[jmowreader]

41. Trust me on this: you do NOT want tobacco banned

While it has no therapeutic value and is much too dangerous to allow otc sales, if you ban the shit you will have gang wars that make the crack trade look mild.

Tobacco is the most addictive drug ever discovered, and people WILL do crazy shit if they're cut off from it. The Colombian drug cartels can only dream of an environment where they control the price of cigarettes.

[Romulox]

43. It has nothing to do with what I want--the FDA doesn't have the authority to regulate poison sales

It has the authority to regulate food and therapeutic drugs, which nicotine is n ot.

[LostinVA]

27. It should be under FDA control

[Xenotime]

29. This is a very good idea. I'm writing my rep. to support this bill

This takes all the smoking questions and laws and gives them strength.

[damntexdem]

30. Where it would have been in the 90s, had not a GOP congress intervened.

Since tobacco companies manipulate the concentration of nicotine in cigarettes, the product is delivering a drug, so should be subject to FDA regulation. Farmers presumably don't manipulate the content of nicotine in their tobacco -- but they might through crop development.

[excess_3]

45. how much will doctors charge to write a 'script? n/t