Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 

Court Reinstates Mass. Tobacco Disclosure Law
October 18, 2001

Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a Massachusetts law that requires tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients in their products, the Associated Press reported Oct. 16.

In a 2-1 decision, the court found that the law "is a valid exercise of the police power" to protect public health. "In short, disclosure under the Disclosure Act will put consumers in a better position to know if their brand contains harmful additives, and to assess the health risks involved," the court said.

The federal appeals court ruling reverses a decision by a federal judge who found the law unconstitutional because it would force companies to reveal their trade secrets.

"Very little is known about the health effects of tobacco additives that can make a harmful product even more harmful," said Attorney General Tom Reilly. "For the first time, a public-health department may study these additives and inform the public what risks these ingredients pose to smokers. This decision is a big public-health victory."

Passed in 1996, the disclosure law requires tobacco companies to submit lists and amounts of the substances added to cigarettes, snuff, and chewing tobacco to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. The lists would be kept confidential unless the health department deemed that the ingredients posed a public-health risk.

The law was never enforced because Philip Morris Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., and U.S. Tobacco Co. filed a lawsuit in 1997.

Companies refusing to comply with the law would be prohibited from doing business in Massachusetts.

The tobacco companies are considering an appeal. "We're concerned this Massachusetts statute really puts us in a position requiring us to unfairly reveal competitively sensitive brand recipe information," said Philip Morris spokesman Mike Pfeil.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Your Turn! Post a public comment (read guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 200
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, focused, and on-topic. Comments are meant for thoughtful discussion of the article published above.

  2. Do not post personal requests for help or general promotions for your organization (Get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.