FDA proposes color graphic warnings for cigarette packs

[Bill Godshall]

As the one who urged Sen. Mike Enzi to offer the amendment to Sen. Kennedy's FSPTCA bill in July 2007 to require color graphic warning labels on 50% of cigarette packs, and as the only health advocate besides Enzi to urge the Senate HELP Comittee to approve it, I'm pleased that the FDA has now proposed new warnings at:
Proposed Cigarette Product Warning Labels
and has issued a proposed rule at:
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-28538_PI.pdf

These warnings almost certainly will help increase sales and use of e-cigarettes.


See all proposed warnings at
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/UCM232425.pdf

Public Comment

FDA is seeking public comment on the proposed rule from Friday, November 12, 2010 through Tuesday, January 11, 2011. To submit an official comment during this time period:

- Go to www.regulations.gov and insert docket number FDA-2010-N-0568 into the “search” box and follow the prompts.
- Send a fax, with your comments, to 301-827-6870
- Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
All comments should be identified by Docket ID No. FDA-2010-N-0568. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.

PS Considering that CTFK, ACS, ALA, AHA adamantly opposed this and other health amendments offered by Sen. Enzi to the FSPTCA, calling them Poison Pills and a Trojan Horse intended to kill the bill, its nice to see that CTFK is now supporting color graphic cigarette warnings http://tobaccofreekids.org/Script/DisplayPressRelease.php3?Display=1240


Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
FAX 412-351-5881
smokefree@compuserve.com

 

[Thulium]

Some of these would be hilarious on e-cigarette packaging:

 

[Bill Godshall]

For clarification, the FSPTCA only requires color graphic warnings on cigarettes. The FSPTCA required large misleading text only warnings for smokeless tobacco in June.

If/when the FDA classifies e-cigarettes as tobacco products, there will NOT be any mandatory warnings for e-cigarettes.
The FDA would have to promulgate new regulations for e-cigarettes under the FSPTCA (a 1-2 year process) to require any warnings on e-cigarettes.

 

[CJsKee]

You may be right, Bill...it may help increase sales of e-cigarettes. At the same time, though, it's just more abuse and psychological assault of smokers and that makes me sick!

 

[D103]

CJsKee I totally agree. I do not say that this will ever happen but.. to make a personal point I look at things like this:
If it were put to me that in order for me to be able to continue vaping - (and I absolutely LOVE vaping, it has saved my life and I feel very passionate about it remaining available to all) - I would have to go along with "throwing smokers under the bus" so to speak, I would give up vaping......because abuse, tyranny, legalized extortion through excessive taxation, unreasonable criminalization, institution-sanctioned lies, propaganda and fear-mongering on a nationwide scale, political strong-arming, and governmental and institutional (both Health and Education) disregard for truth, scientific integrity and the Public's "right to know" - all these things are wrong whether they are being done directly to me or anyone else. That is what this country used to stand for and without true Principles we are nothing more than predators and another notch in the evolutionary food-chain bound for extinction...by our own hands.

 

[BCB]

What an amazing post, D103! I salute you. I think the graphic stickers are worthless garbage to placate the do-gooders and try to intimidate smokers into quitting. As if smokers were unaware of the message being sent OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Thanks for the wonderful post, D103 (and CJsKee, too!).

 

[CJsKee]

CJsKee I totally agree. I do not say that this will ever happen but.. to make a personal point I look at things like this:
If it were put to me that in order for me to be able to continue vaping - (and I absolutely LOVE vaping, it has saved my life and I feel very passionate about it remaining available to all) - I would have to go along with "throwing smokers under the bus" so to speak, I would give up vaping......because abuse, tyranny, legalized extortion through excessive taxation, unreasonable criminalization, institution-sanctioned lies, propaganda and fear-mongering on a nationwide scale, political strong-arming, and governmental and institutional (both Health and Education) disregard for truth, scientific integrity and the Public's "right to know" - all these things are wrong whether they are being done directly to me or anyone else. That is what this country used to stand for and without true Principles we are nothing more than predators and another notch in the evolutionary food-chain bound for extinction...by our own hands.

Beautifully said, D103...

 

[Treece]

CJsKee I totally agree. I do not say that this will ever happen but.. to make a personal point I look at things like this:
If it were put to me that in order for me to be able to continue vaping - (and I absolutely LOVE vaping, it has saved my life and I feel very passionate about it remaining available to all) - I would have to go along with "throwing smokers under the bus" so to speak, I would give up vaping......because abuse, tyranny, legalized extortion through excessive taxation, unreasonable criminalization, institution-sanctioned lies, propaganda and fear-mongering on a nationwide scale, political strong-arming, and governmental and institutional (both Health and Education) disregard for truth, scientific integrity and the Public's "right to know" - all these things are wrong whether they are being done directly to me or anyone else. That is what this country used to stand for and without true Principles we are nothing more than predators and another notch in the evolutionary food-chain bound for extinction...by our own hands.

My mother died of lung cancer. As her primary caregiver, I saw firsthand the horror that is lung cancer.

It did not motivate me to quit smoking.

So, I think it's safe to say these images would not have motivated me, either.

These images are intended to punish, humiliate, frighten, and dehumanize. These images will provide fodder for those who already feel they have a license to hate, ostracize, and degrade people who smoke. These images will do little else but provide the anti-smoking zealots with more reasons to pat themselves on the back.

My mother never quit smoking. She expressed absolutely no desire to quit smoking, and she never expressed regret for having started. This is what the anti-smoking zealots are apparently incapable of understanding: There is a benefit to smoking. If there weren't, people wouldn't do it.

Vaping wasn't an option for my mom. Even if it had been, I don't know that she'd have chosen it (although I'd certainly have offered). But in my view, the very basis of tobacco harm reduction is to provide accurate, complete information and respect the individual's right to make his/her own decision--even if it's a decision we may not like.

Force, coercion, guilt-trips, draconian laws, social stigma ... these tactics help no one. Just the opposite. They're divisive, destructive, and dangerous.

Sorry to ramble.

D103, beautifully said, and I could not agree with you more. I'd sooner give up vaping than to throw smokers under the bus. Smokers I understand and relate to. The kind of mind that thinks these images are in any way a good idea? No, I don't relate to that at all--and I hope I never do.

 

[JustJulie]

Well, I'm going to just say it . . . this is really stupid. I mean seriously stupid.

If we're going to really start warning people about the dangers of various vices by fear-mongering, why not require foods high in fat to carry warnings, complete with grotesquely obese people? Or maybe a picture of a wrecked car along with a mangled body should be prominently featured on alcohol packaging to warn of the dangers of drinking and driving.

I really wish the FDA would focus its efforts on telling the truth about smokeless tobacco products instead of trying to regulate behavior by manipulation.

 

[D103]

Thanks BCB, CJsKee and Treece. I always look forward to reading all your comments...they keep me hopeful and sane.
Treece thanks for all you do, I'm a regular reader of "Nicotine Buzz."

 

[Thulium]

Well, I'm going to just say it . . . this is really stupid. I mean seriously stupid.

If we're going to really start warning people about the dangers of various vices by fear-mongering, why not require foods high in fat to carry warnings, complete with grotesquely obese people? Or maybe a picture of a wrecked car along with a mangled body should be prominently featured on alcohol packaging to warn of the dangers of drinking and driving.

I really wish the FDA would focus its efforts on telling the truth about smokeless tobacco products instead of trying to regulate behavior by manipulation.

WARNING: Fat-free food is not a safe alternative to getting your fat .... off the couch.
WARNING: Food can be addictive.
WARNING: Driving can be harmful to your children.
WARNING: Food causes fatal obesity.
WARNING: Driving causes accidents.
WARNING: Wearing a seat belt is not a safe alternative to walking.
WARNING: Food causes strokes and heart disease.
WARNING: Obesity during pregnancy can harm your baby.
WARNING: Driving can kill you.
WARNING: Vehicle exhaust causes damage to the environment and fatal lung disease in pedestrians.
WARNING: Quitting driving now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.

WARNING: Switching to a smoke-free alternative tobacco product eliminates the risks of smoking.

 

[Treece]

Thanks BCB, CJsKee and Treece. I always look forward to reading all your comments...they keep me hopeful and sane.
Treece thanks for all you do, I'm a regular reader of "Nicotine Buzz."

Thanks much, D103. It keeps me sane knowing I'm not the only one reading this ... madness.

 

[5cardstud]

This is the sticker that made me quit.

 

[Zapp and Roger]

Denis Leary "No Cure for Cancer" :

" You could have cigarettes come in a black pack, with a skull & crossbones on the front, called "Tumors", and smokers would still be lined up around the block waiting to purchase them. 'I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Nom Nom Nom'"

He said it almost 18 years ago, it was true then and now. There is not one smoker ANYWHERE that isn't aware of the effects of smoking, we were having that crap crammed down our throats since the late 60s like we "just didn't get the message". So in 40 years has anyone been missed? No. Will the horrifying images make a difference? Probably not. We all knew the risks without seeing them and still chose to smoke. Scare tactics are never a good way to get a message across. It smacks of desperation and always will.

 

[dave8944]

Maybe cigarrette cases will make a come back now. They are always cool to see in old movies.

 

[sherid]

Thank you for your wise words, D103. If we support the dehumanization of smokers, we open the door for the dehumanization of vapers, the obese, the drinker, etc. We open the door to a society of robots controlled by government and the nameless faces of health NAZIS. Big Brother is out there waiting to grab us all.

"But some believe that the restrictions, if they came in the form of legislation as opposed to a voluntary settlement, would be unconstitutional. “Many of the restrictions on advertising included in the settlement agreement could not be imposed legislatively because they would violate the First Amendment,” says Richard Samp, chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/advertising/topic.aspx?topic=tobacco_alcohol

 

[rothenbj]

Some of our radical friends over in the comment section of Dr Siegel's blog should read this thread. In their mind, we are just another enemy. I'm sorry Bill, but I personally only seeing this issue as further polarization of the smoking issue and more antagonism between those that do and those that don't.

I can't visualize any impact on current smokers other than more belligerence toward TC. What I can see is more support for the bad boy or bad girl image among our youth. What higher rebellion than staring death in the face as you light up that smoke. Dying or illness really don't have much impact on you at that age. Images, to me, will only serve as a badge of courage for the misguided.

Tobacco control needs to rethink their position, if their true motive is to get people to stop smoking. First they have to get honest about relative risk and publicly acknowledge it. People use tobacco and nicotine for a number of reasons, safer alternatives to smoking should be encouraged. Rather than worrying about obscene labeling, move the cigarettes out of convenience and grocery stores and put them where purchasing becomes more of an effort. You don't know how many people may be converted to safer alternatives when they run out of smokes and it was outside business hours. If their only alternative would be a much safer alternative (oh, almost forgot, nothing other than "quit or die" is a safe alternative to smoking) to hold them over till they could purchase cigarettes, they might find something that they enjoy just as much. 16 months ago I had no incentive to quit smoking (other than cost), but e cigs and Swedish snus has gotten me to forget about my 43 year love affair with cigarettes.

If you cut off the easy supply to our youth, and make safer alternatives easier to obtain for current smokers, you're bound to reduce the number of smokers. You don't have to turn smokers into outcasts. I see these warning labels about as effective as removing flavored cigarettes from the market.

 

[sherid]

Some of our radical friends over in the comment section of Dr Siegel's blog should read this thread. In their mind, we are just another enemy. I'm sorry Bill, but I personally only seeing this issue as further polarization of the smoking issue and more antagonism between those that do and those that don't.

Hmmm. Nothing radical about the folks on Siegel's comment section. I'm one of them. People simply point to the hypocrisy of some e cig users trying to have it both ways: employing the language and thought processes of anti-smokers in hopes of gaining approval of their new habit. The posters there don't deny that people should use e cigs if they wish. They just tell the truth. If it looks like smoking, vapers are screwed should the anti-smokers continue to prevail. If vapers cannot understand that every time they repeat the language of denormalization by calling smokers stinky and other such vile comments, they are simply playing into the hands of the anti-smokers. Anti-smokers are clearly now saying that vapers are stinky also, so guess where that goes. It is ONE battle. It is not vapers win; smokers lose. If vapers turn their backs against the smoking as choice battle, they are screwing themselves. You can't play nice/nice with the lunatics at anti-smokers because they are LUNATICS. That's why there are so-called "radicals" on Siegel's blog. I am one of them.

 

[StormFinch]

I continually came in contact with ALA and ACS shock posters in school;

Spouted the school taught tobacco dangers rhetoric to my smoking grandparents in 6th grade.

Was probably one of the first in a long line of students presented with the smoking pig's lung in 7th grade.

Lit my first cigarette in 8th grade.

All of the information sessions, graphics and demonstrations didn't work then, won't work now. Smokers are the original rebels; the more you preach at them, the more they're going to light up. Do you know what I would do on national smoke out days while in my teens and twenties? I did my best to smoke MORE than I did on other days. Yeah, I was obstinate.

Like dave8944 I think that both styles of cigarette cases (flat and pack holders) will make a come back.

If enough warnings are designed I predict teens will turn them into trading cards. They can take up space with their serial killers of the world and garbage pail kids. (which are making a comeback btw)

 

[Bill Godshall]

The only reason I urged Senator Enzi to offer the amendment (to Sen. Kennedy's FSPTCA bill) to require color graphic warning labels, and the only reason why I urged the Senate HELP Committee to approve the amendment (which it did on a unanimous voice vote) was because cigarette consumption and smoking rates had declined significantly after similar cigarette warnings were required in Canada, Brazil and Australia.

Please note, however, that the FSPTCA merely requires one color graphic warning for each of the 9 different text warning labels.
The law never stated that the warnings should stigmatize smokers (as some have alleged on this thread and elsewhere), and I've urged the FDA to ensure that the cigarette warnings are supportive of smokers instead of ostracizing them.
But the FDA has not collaborated or communicated with me when developing their proposed warnings.

I urge everyone to carefully review the proposed warnings, and to submit your comments to the FDA (starting tomorrow).
Let them know which of the warnings you don't like (and explain why), which ones you like (and explain why) and/or urge them to scrap the proposed ones and develop new ones (and suggest themes or submit drawings/pictures that you think are better).

Finally, to all of those who claim that these warnings won't reduce cigarette consumption, that's the exact same thing I was repeatedly told during the past 25 years when I successfully advocated public policies requiring smokefree workplaces, suing cigarette companies, prohibiting tobacco marketing and sales to minors, increasing cigarette taxes, etc.