With one major exception, the tobacco industry has opposed legislation that would give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the power to regulate tobacco products. The exception is Philip Morris, the nation's largest cigarette company, which could benefit if the Democrat-controlled Congress finally passes the FDA bill.

The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 25 that the FDA bill is among a number of measures getting a fresh hearing with the Democrats' takeover in Congress. The measure, which would ban the use of terms like "light" and "mild" on cigarette packs and require larger health warnings, is endorsed by Philip Morris but opposed by companies like R.J. Reynolds, which fear that increased scrutiny of tobacco ads would only cement Philip Morris' position as the industry leader.

Reynolds officials call the measure the "Marlboro Monopoly Act," saying that Philip Morris will benefit because it has the best-known and well-established brand names in the industry, while competitors would have less ability to use marketing to compete.

"Legislation that reduces the serious harm caused by smoking would be a very good development, and it is not about giving a competitive advantage to any one company," replied Steven C. Parrish, senior vice president of corporate affairs for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris.

"I don't think there's been any love between Philip Morris and Henry Waxman," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), lead sponsor of the FDA bill and a longtime foe of the tobacco industry. "I don't care about Philip Morris's interests. Cigarettes -- as dangerous as they are -- are the only consumer products that are completely unregulated by the federal government."

Democrats also may be receptive to legislation calling for an increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, now 39 cents a pack and unchanged since 1997, and to ratifying the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control -- a worldwide tobacco treaty that has been signed by President Bush but never approved by Congress.

"We agree with most of the treaty's core principles, and we want to engage with the rest of the world to help bring them up to our standards," said White House deputy press secretary. "The treaty requires statutory changes that we would have to make before ratifying it, and also raises some constitutional concerns -- particularly with respect to the First Amendment. I can't say at this time how quickly those issues would be resolved."