Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Big Tobacco Could See Big Benefits in FDA Regulations
August 18, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

A new law that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) power to regulate tobacco products could have the paradoxical effects of cutting smoking and helping the nation's largest tobacco companies, some observers say.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Aug. 10 that some experts believe the new law will shield the industry from critics by bestowing the tacit approval of the federal government, as well as possibly forcing out smaller tobacco companies that cut into the profits of big firms like Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds.

"It will also provide greater legitimacy for the industry, which can only be helpful," said Citigroup Global Markets analyst Adam Spielman. "The No. 1 threat to industry profits comes via competition from the small discount players. But if these are to stay within the law, their costs will rise. If the law is implemented the way we expect, its main impact will be to boost profitability by reducing competition from the small discount manufacturers."

"It should provide more predictability for all tobacco businesses," said William R. Phelps, a spokesperson for Philip Morris parent company Altria. "Innovation in developing reduced-risk tobacco products is going to be the key test. With clear guidelines and a clear oversight, there should be an opportunity for increased competition as new companies and existing ones work to develop products that could possibly reduce the harm from tobacco."

Some see fears that FDA regulation will hurt smaller tobacco firms as overwrought. "Responsible companies won't be incurring a lot more cost; those that aren't, will," said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. "It's not a question of large or small."

Unanswered questions about FDA regulation include whether the agency will strictly review all new products coming to market and whether FDA will seek to control the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. A scientific advisory panel also is due to report to the agency about cigarette ingredients, including menthol.

Industry critic Stanton A. Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco is concerned that the industry will have input into the advisory panel's recommendations. "How can anyone defend having convicted racketeers involved in the public-health policymaking process," said Glantz, who said the federal law could shield the industry from state efforts to enact tougher tobacco regulations.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by maxwood on 18 Aug 09 08:13 PM EDT
1. I would think FDA jurisdiction will be a benefit because there will be an unambiguous concept of where everyone can direct suggestions in the interest of public health. 2. Mr. Phelps may not realize what he is saying-- reduced-risk tobacco products doubtless will include vaporizer, e-cigarette and long-stemmed one-hitters, all of which reduce dosage and reduce the gross amount of product the customer will be buying (Downdosage Revolution). Let the industry take warning and work on raising product quality exponentially to compensate for being able to sell 1/14th as much tobacco a few years hence. 3. If my last two points are correct, maybe Mr. Glantz need not worry what the racketeers say. 4. Fairness Doctrine-- let the FDA also take over jurisdiction of product marketing regulation for newly legalized cannabis in the same spirit as tobacco, and let the best herb win in the spirit of free market.

Posted by Musician on 19 Aug 09 09:04 AM EDT
And this is a surprise?? Sometimes I am just amazed. Looks like Glantz is getting the proverbial karma return of many years of lobbying and screwing the private business owner, but probably not in the ways he anticipated.

Posted by walter 103 on 19 Aug 09 10:27 AM EDT
All the major companies manufactuer all the low cost garbage cigarettes,off the wall name brands are owned by their parent company. Check out the SEC 10K form of big tobacco companies to see all the brands that big tobacco owns.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 19 Aug 09 10:48 AM EDT
The quote by Matt Myers in this article is grossly incorrect, as several hundred small cigarette companies will have to spend more than $.50/pack to comply with the FDA regulations, while Altria, Reynolds and Lorillard (which have a combined 90% of the US cigarette market share) will have to spend less than $.05/pack to comply. The new FDA law, which was privately negotiated and agreed to by Altria and Matt Myers in 2004, also protects the deadliest and largest selling tobacco product (Marlboro cigarettes) from market competition by far less hazardous smokefree tobacco products, which are 99% less deadly than cigarettes. per Of course small tobacco companies Altria (formerly Philip Morris) negotiated and agreed to the FDA tobacco legislative deal with Matt Myers

Posted by Fred on 19 Aug 09 11:57 AM EDT
This still doesn't answer the main question for me. Why are convicted racketeers not in prison? Since they knew the deadly effects of tobacco and kept it from smokers, why are they not on death row now?

Posted by Pete on 19 Aug 09 01:33 PM EDT
Building on Fred's sentiment, the new law has basically exposed the FDA for what it really is: a tacit approver of big-money lobbying efforts and not at all the watchdog of consumers' health that it wants us to believe in. A substance that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans each year and sickens many more does not need to be regulated for "safety and effectiveness." If they cared, the FDA would have big tobacco's products pulled from the market. Money trumps safety, though, in the FDA's eyes.

Posted by Lynda Farley on 22 Aug 09 11:40 PM EDT
This is just another bootlegger's relief act. We are stoopid, we are repeating history. We didn't learn a thing from Al Capone. You can no more legislate away the law of supply and demand than you can legislate away the law of gravity. It's a pity that some tobacco companies, especially phillip morris, have bought into the lies of the anti-smoking industry. It is NOT about nicotine - and never was. It's about SMOKING. People have enjoyed smoking for thousands of years. A real travesty here is that our country was FOUNDED by a bunch of smokers, and quite a few TOBACCO farmers. The 'Father of Our Country', George Washington, was a tobacco farmer. We financed the Revolutionary war with tobacco. We might not have a country to worry about losing our liberty IN if it weren't for tobacco. www.forces.org www.libertyvan.com

Posted by Larry Didier on 25 Aug 09 02:46 PM EDT
Ms. Farley's comments are riddled with inaccuracies: 1) Prohibition reduced overall alcohol consumption in the USA; cirrhosis of the liver rates plummeted just like per capita consumption. Yes, criminals like Capone took advantage of the reduction in suppliers to fund their criminal empire, but later efforts to tightly control the alcohol industry have proved moderately successful in reducing problems. Tighter regulation, and esp. higher prices based on today's economies rather than those of the '40's & '50's, will reduce such problems further (and could help to fund prev/Tx if policy makers would wake up. 2) People have not been smoking for 'thousands of years'. Chew and snuff were much more common until the early 1900's when machinery started mass-production of cigs. The highly addictive quality of smoking the drug nicotine has a lot to do with its huge costs to our society and throughout the world. 3) Citing the fact (undisputed) that several USA 'founders' were smokers and/or tobacco farmers makes as much sense today as noting that many were slave-holders and that they all agreed to withhold full citizenship from women. It has no relevance to us today because all three are anachronism's in our current world.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines