The researchers, led by Stanton Glantz from the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, reached these conclusions by analysing previously secret documents from the tobacco industry and the Institute of Medicine related to the Institute’s landmark 2001 report, Clearing the smoke — a report that set the tone for the development and regulation of tobacco products in the US, particularly those claiming to be less dangerous.

The authors found that tobacco companies developed and implemented strategies with consulting and legal firms to access the IOM proceedings (that led to the FDA-commissioned Institute of Medicine report on tobacco products) and that the companies used this access to deliver specific, carefully formulated messages designed to serve their business interests.

Although the authors found no evidence that the efforts of tobacco companies exerted direct influence on the IOM committee, the analysis shows that tobacco companies were pleased with the final report, particularly its recommendation that tobacco products can be marketed with exposure or risk reduction claims provided the products substantially reduce exposure and provided the behavioral and health consequences of these products are determined in post-marketing surveillance and epidemiological studies (“tiered testing”). Recommendations within the report have policy implications that were continuing to reverberate in 2012.

The authors say: “There was a lack of clear policy on tobacco industry engagement by the [Institute of Medicine] which, combined with the general presumption of honesty upon which all scientific discourse is based, created an opportunity for the tobacco companies to advocate positions that supported their interests.”

They continue: “The presence of tobacco industry representatives on the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, combined with the FDA’s official consideration of the tobacco industry as a “stakeholder,” increase the likelihood that the tobacco companies will continue to successfully manipulate the scientific discourse around tobacco product regulation, to the companies’ benefit and to the detriment of public health.”

The authors conclude: “To prevent such an outcome, the FDA and counterpart organizations in other countries need to remain cognizant of the guidelines for implementing FCTC Article 5.3* and that they are dealing with companies with a history of more than 50 years of intentionally misleading the public and who were found by two federal courts to have participated in ”a pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of the RICO Act** when assessing the role of the tobacco companies and the information they present as part of the regulatory process.”

In an accompanying Perspective, Thomas Novotny (uninvolved in the study) from the University California, San Diego says: “[The tobacco industry] should never be treated as a stakeholder because it is unlikely that the industry will ever be part of the solution to the public health challenge of tobacco use.”

Novotny continues: “The profits from selling cigarettes and alternative tobacco products are simply too great for the tobacco industry to simply fade into history. Thus, the public health community needs to do what it does best: to rally popular support for strong, science-based approaches to prevention of tobacco use, to expose the truths about the harms of tobacco use to current users, and to support government agencies in carrying out their legislatively mandated duties to protect public health.”

Notes:

*The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, developed in response to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic. Article 5.3 relates to the protection of public health policies with respect from tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.

**Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a US federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

Funding: This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant CA-087472. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

See Original Here

The rule was originally issued and made effective on June 22nd, 2010, and is titled Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco To Protect Children and Adolescents.

This rule, which has the force and effect of law, is almost 3 years old now and sets new requirements relating to the sale and distribution of tobacco and tobacco products.

These rules are:

• Prohibits the sale of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to people younger than 18.
• Prohibits the sale of cigarette packages with fewer than 20 cigarettes.
• Prohibits the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in vending machines, self-service displays, or other impersonal modes of sales, except in very limited situations.
• Prohibits free samples of cigarettes and limits distribution of smokeless tobacco products.

The rule goes even further, with new requirements relating to the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of tobacco and tobacco products.

These rules are:

• Prohibits tobacco brand-name sponsorship of any athletic comment musical, or other social or cultural event, or any team or entry in those events.
• Requires that audio ads use only words with no music or sound effects.
• Prohibits the sale or distribution of items, such as hats and T-shirts, would cigarette and smokeless tobacco brands or logos.

This ruling affect deadly handcuffs tobacco producers in all areas relating to the sale, distribution, marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of their products, regardless of the fact that they all create cancer, according to the CDC.

This FDA ruling, which is described as a broad set of federal requirements designed to significantly curb access to and the appeal of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents in the United States, has been reissued for reasons unknown, as it was originally released March 18, 2010, and similar laws had already been on the books in regards to tobacco products.

HHS and the FDA were very adamant about keeping these products out of the hands of children, however.

“This ruling is a critical piece of a coordinated effort to save lives, lower costs, and reduce suffering from heart disease, cancer and other tobacco related illness,” said HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius. “Today, we’re addressing a larger public health effort to prevent our children from becoming the next generation of Americans to die early from tobacco related disease. This is a great step toward a healthier America.”

Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., was even tougher in her statement.

“Every day nearly 4000 kids under the age of 18 try their 1st cigarette and 1000 kids under the age of 18 become daily smokers. Many of these kids will become addicted before they are old enough to understand the risks and will ultimately died too young. This is unavoidable personal tragedy for those kids and their families as well as a preventable public health disaster for our country. Putting these restrictions in place is necessary to protect the health of those we care about: our children.”

This rule was originally written as a stand-alone regulation in the early 1990s by the FDA, and after being set aside by the Supreme Court of the United States, was then included as a key provision of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Tobacco manufacturers and retail distributors of tobacco products not in compliance with this rule will be subject to stern enforcement action by the federal government.

See this article at its original location>

But first, the government has to decide whether it wants to defend the labels it developed or go back to the drawing board.

The Department of Justice has 90 days to appeal the case to the high court. A spokesman declined to comment on whether it would.

Calls from some anti-tobacco groups to do so came quickly.

Wednesday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit “was wrong on the science and wrong on the law, and we urge the government to appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement.

In August, a three-member panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of five tobacco companies, which argued the labels violate the First Amendment rights of corporations. The labels are supposed to take up half of each cigarette package.

That case directly challenged the nine labels FDA developed to implement the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. They include graphic images meant to illustrate the consequences of smoking, including an autopsied cadaver and a man smoking through a tracheotomy, a hole in his neck.

The majority argued that the government showed no evidence that the labels would effectively reduce smoking — the science is a matter of debate — and that the government, therefore, could not force the industry to foot the bill for advertising an anti-tobacco message.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the underlying provisions in the law before the labels were created. The tobacco industry has already appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court but asked it not to take action on it before the case was resolved in the D.C. court.

“Now, it’s up to the government to decide if these particular warning labels are actually defensible to the Supreme Court,” said Mary Rouvelas, senior counsel for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, who supports the labels.

Other countries have introduced similar labels. Anti-smoking advocates expect to see mounting evidence that the labels are effective, but the FDA produced limited data to suggest that its labels would work.

One option the FDA could consider, Rouvelas said, would be to adopt labels that are basically the same as labels in other countries. Then the agency could use evidence of their effectiveness to make its case.

“It’s pretty clear that the [D.C. court] had a problem with the scientific studies,” Rouvelas said, adding that First Amendment cases often rise or fall with scientific data that shows any infringement on free speech is narrowly tailored to accomplish a legitimate government goal.

In any event, the labels will not go on cigarette packs anytime soon.

If the government appeals the case and Supreme Court agrees to hear it, the case most likely will be argued next fall and decided spring or winter 2014. Under the law, the labels were supposed to go on packages in October.

The graphic warnings aren’t the only labeling issues the industry is grappling with.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that tobacco companies will have to publish “corrective statements” about the health effects of cigarettes in package inserts, on corporate websites and in national print and broadcast advertisements — to make amends for decades of misleading the public.

The statements include that tobacco kills an average 1,200 people a day. The industry has not yet said whether it will appeal the ruling.

See this article at its original location>

Lawyers for major tobacco companies said Monday they do not want the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to touch a panel’s ruling that went against the government’s controversial graphic warning labels requirement.

A divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit in August ruled against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s requirement that cigarette packs carry graphic images that depict the dangers of smoking. Judge Janice Rogers Brown called the images “inflammatory” and said they were “unabashed attempts to evoke emotion.” The court said the proposed warning images violate the First Amendment.

The U.S. Justice Department wants the full D.C. Circuit to overturn the panel decision. Yesterday, responding to DOJ, lawyers for tobacco companies that include R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard urged the D.C. Circuit not to tangle with the panel decision. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court could be asked for its assessment.

“The proposed warnings will not create more informed consumers and were never intended to,” Jones Day litigation partner Noel Francisco, lead counsel for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., said in a court filing Monday. Francisco also said the images “had no measurable effect on consumer knowledge of the smoking risks the warnings address.”