Gov't vows to fight for graphic tobacco warning labels

FDA

(CBS/AP) The Food and Drug Administration wanted tobacco companies to add graphic warning labels to its cigarette packs by September 2012 to inform the public of smoking's dangers. On Wednesday, a judge blocked that requirement, saying the images - which included a sewn-up corpse of a smoker and a baby surrounded by smoke - violate free speech protected by the Constitution.

PICTURES: 27 cigarette warning labels nixed by the FDA

PICTURES: 55 gruesome tobacco warning labels

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had first temporarily blocked the requirement in November, saying it was likely cigarette makers will succeed in a lawsuit, which could take years to resolve. His latest decision is already being appealed by the government.

"This Administration is determined to do everything we can to warn young people about the dangers of smoking, which remains the leading cause of preventable death in America," the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services said in a written statement. "This public health initiative will be an effective tool in our efforts to stop teenagers from starting in the first place and taking up this deadly habit. We are confident that efforts to stop these important warnings from going forward will ultimately fail."

The nine graphic images approved by the FDA in June include images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole; smoke enveloping an infant receiving a mother's kiss; a pair of diseased lungs next to a pair of healthy lungs; a diseased mouth afflicted with what cancer; a man breathing into an oxygen mask; a cadaver on a table with post-autopsy chest staples; a woman weeping; a premature baby in an incubator; and a man wearing a T-shirt that features a "No Smoking" symbol and the words "I Quit." The FDA requirement said the labels would cover the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back and include a number for a stop-smoking hotline.

Some of the largest U.S. tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co., had questioned the labels' constitutionality, saying the warnings don't just convey facts to inform people's decision whether to smoke but instead force the manufacturers to display government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently than their own branding, changes that would cost the companies millions of dollars.

Meanwhile, the FDA has said that the public interest in conveying the dangers of smoking outweighs the companies' free speech rights.

In his ruling Wednesday, Leon wrote that the graphic images "were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks; rather, they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking."

The judge also said the federal government can turn to alternatives to curb tobacco use, such as increasing anti-smoking advertisements, raising tobacco taxes, reducing the size and changing content of the labels, and improving efforts to reduce youth access to tobacco products.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer representing Lorillard in the case, said he was pleased with Wednesday's ruling.

"The government, as the court said, is free to speak for itself, but it may not, except in the rarest circumstance, require others to mouth its position," Abrams said.

While the government, public health officials, tobacco companies and others "share a responsibility to provide tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks associated with smoking ... the goal of informing the public about the risks of tobacco use can and should be accomplished consistent with the U.S. Constitution," Martin L. Holton III, executive vice president and general counsel for R.J. Reynolds, said in a statement.

The FDA and the Justice Department declined to comment Wednesday.

Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement the ruling was "wrong on the science and the law."

"(The warnings) unequivocally tell the truth about cigarette smoking - that it is addictive, harms children, causes fatal lung disease, cancer, strokes and heart disease, and can kill you. What isn't factual or accurate about these warnings? Not even the tobacco industry disputes these facts," Myers said.

While the tobacco industry's latest legal challenge may not hold up, it could delay the new warning labels for years. And that is likely to save cigarette makers millions of dollars in lost sales and increased packaging costs.

Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., according to the CDC. Currently one in five U.S. adults smoke - that's 45.3 million Americans. Each year smoking causes 443,000 deaths. The CDC warns even occasional smoking can cause harm. Smokers have a greater risk of developing heart disease, stroke, and cancers of the mouth, lungs, pancreas, esophagus, stomach, kidneys, cervix, and bladder.

What do you think of the proposed tobacco warning labels? Do you agree with the judge?

27 Photos

27 cigarette warning labels nixed by the FDA

[zhengxi2]

This is the end of this part and http://www.diablo3-us.com there is only one part left for this long and detailed article. You need to know more about it and try to get the Diablo 3 gold as more as possible. This is my suggestion about this hot and popular game in these days. I do http://www.diabloshoping.comthink you need to read the last part because a strong summary is always popular.

[erasmus111]

You call those GRAPHIC? Seriously? They ain't nothing compared to the Canadian ones.

[m3houston]

Let's require car hoods be painted with images from fatal highway wrecks. Let's require that swimming pool bottoms be adorned with the images of drowned children. Do it for the children!

/sarcasm

[erasmus111]

Yes, well, we know that it is a possibility that a car can have a fatal wreck, but it doesn't always happen. Same with a child drowing in a pool. The difference with smoking is that the child has way more chance of getting cancer or emphezema (sp?). If the child is subjected to cigarette smoke, locked in a car or house with it for years, and then grows up to be a smoker, too, the chances are GREAT. And children that have parents that smoke, usually end up smoking too.

[Jame-_V]

To be honest its really a human rights violation for any goverment to write a law that says what you can't put in or take out of your body. If the UN would recognize that it would set the laws for several issues ranging from abortion to sexual orientation to drug use.

[qmpash]

This is rich, coming from the agency which approves any and all drugs coming down the pike unless they kill on contact. The FDA has killed more Americans than the tobacco industry and much quicker.

[DebbieCorona]

Government should say it is against every Christian, Buddist, pick a religions belief that their body is a temple. To Not have these graphic images goes against religious beliefs to protect the body as a temple. Voila! Images back on and should be. Every corporation should be behind this as their religious belief as well as a person with cancer is going to cost them big time. Of course the GOP is not about prevention ie birth control but will promote the tabacco industry. Just use the religion tact. Blunt of Missouri can help them out on how to write a bill about stopping preventive measures.