Why a Tobacco Giant Backs a Tough New Antismoking Bill

[rcrush]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904250,00.html?xid=rss-fullnation-yahoo

Why a Tobacco Giant Backs a Tough New Antismoking Bill

By Kate Pickert / Washington Friday, Jun. 12, 2009

The U.S. Senate on Thursday struck the most devastating legislative blow in history to Big Tobacco, giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over the industry. The new bill, which passed in the House in April, includes tough new restrictions on advertising like allowing only black-and-white text ads in magazines with substantial youth readerships, mandates that manufacturers prove or stop using claims like "light" and "low tar," bans flavored cigarettes (except menthol) and makes provisions for large, graphic warning labels. So why, then, is tobacco giant Philip Morris, unlike its industry brethren, celebrating the unprecedented oversight?

When Senator John McCain introduced FDA regulatory legislation in 1998, the company spent a reported $100 million successfully fighting it. But since then, Philip Morris has had a crucial realization. With 50% of the U.S. tobacco market already safely in the company's pocket — and more than 50% of 18- to 25-year-old smokers loyal to its top brand, Marlboro — restrictive legislation will effectively lock in its market dominance, preventing any competitors from taking a bite out of Philip Morris' very lucrative business.
(See vintage cigarette propaganda.)

The company's main rival, R.J. Reynolds, manufacturer of Camel cigarettes, is still in dismay over Philip Morris' reversal from regulation opponent to champion, and the third largest cigarette manufacturer, Lorillard, has labeled the legislation the Marlboro Monopoly Act. Both argue that as the new restrictions cut off most remaining avenues available for advertising and ban marketing stunts like free-sample cigarette giveaways, the companies' ability to "communicate" (i.e., gain market share) with potential and existing smokers about their products will be blocked. In addition, the administrative costs of complying with FDA regulations favor large manufacturers over smaller ones.
But there's another key reason Philip Morris lobbied hard for FDA regulation, aligning itself with strange bedfellows like the Campaign for Smoke-Free Kids, the American Lung Association and longtime antismoking crusaders Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Henry Waxman. "Philip Morris wants the public-health community to join them in finding the holy grail: the safe cigarette," says Gregory Connolly, a tobacco expert and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. Simply put, figuring out how to produce a less harmful tobacco product and getting an FDA seal of approval could open up a whole new, potentially huge consumer market.

Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a champion of the new legislation, says while "there is no such thing as a safe cigarette," the FDA regulatory structure will allow for research into how to reduce the harm of tobacco. "It's unusual to be on the same side as Philip Morris," he admits. "But their reasons are not our reasons. The bill is a good bill. If they happened to support it, that's fine with me."
But the notion that it's even possible to "reduce the harm" of tobacco is making some public-health officials bristle, even as tobacco executives' mouths are watering. "If we get someone to quit, it's far better than giving someone something with lower levels of toxins. You may delay it, but you're still going to die," says Connolly. (Despite his concerns, Connolly supports the new regulatory bill.) Critics also worry that having an implied stamp of approval on tobacco products from the FDA — which has traditionally governed the manufacture and sale of things like cosmetics, food and pharmaceuticals deemed safe — could give the misleading impression that cigarettes aren't health hazards.

[Indydem]

1. Actually, there is such a thing as a safe cigarette.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-cigarette

Unfortunately, the Obama administration and the FDA has stopped shipments of the safe alternative devices and will not allow them to be sold here in the states at gas stations, etc.

Their claim is that they are nicotine delivery devices... duh.

I still can't believe that they stand in the way of replacing the burning of tobacco, which creates carcinogens and toxic chemicals, with the safe and effective delivery of nicotine.

If you don't believe that the tobacco industry is behind that, I have a bridge to sell you.

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. A-freaking-men to that. Huge mess up by FDA.

There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that nicotine gum, e-cigarettes etc should be more regulated than cigarettes.