FDA One Step Closer To Regulating Tobacco

House Committee Approves Broad Authority For FDA Despite Workload Concerns

(AP)  Congress moved a step closer to handing the Food and Drug Administration broad new authority to regulate tobacco products, despite concerns voiced by many lawmakers that the agency cannot handle its current workload.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 38-12 for legislation that would allow the FDA to reduce nicotine levels and require larger and more informative health warnings on cigarette packs. A Senate committee has already approved similar legislation.

Committee Republicans were almost divided on the legislation, with 11 voting for it. Those who opposed it said the agency has had enough trouble ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply and medicine.

"This legislation, if it becomes law, would require the FDA to take on a task that is enormous, complex, and completely outside its regulatory experience," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and the ranking Republican on the committee. "It will almost necessitate a diversion from its core functions."

Barton said the Federal Trade Commission was better suited for the job.

But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the "unfortunate state of affairs" at FDA did not mean the agency should ignore the harms of tobacco.

"It simply means that when we give the agency this additional responsibility, we also must give it the resources necessary to handle the job and to handle it well," Waxman said.

To address concerns about resources, the legislation calls for the assessment of user fees on tobacco companies. The assessments could initially generate $90 million in the current fiscal year. By 2018, that amount would increase to $755 million. Aides said the fees would be assessed based on market share.

Health groups have been highly supportive of the legislation.

"This bill will put a stop to decades of Big Tobacco marketing, aimed at addicting each new generation of young people to their deadly products," said Daniel Smith, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

More than 400,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses each year. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., noted that both of her parents died from lung cancer, and she asked lawmakers to consider the financial toll that additional smokers generate when they come down with smoking-related illnesses.

Proponents say various aspects of the legislation would deter people from taking up cigarettes or from using cigarettes that they may view as less dangerous because of their labeling.

The legislation would ban candy-flavored cigarettes, which attract younger smokers. It would also prohibit terms such as "light" or "mild" which many consumers mistakenly believe means the products are safer.

The Bush administration has voiced qualms about giving the agency responsibility for tobacco regulation because some people could get a false sense of security about the safety of tobacco products.

For decades, the FDA said it lacked authority to regulate tobacco so long as cigarette makers did not claim that smoking provided health benefits. In 1996, it reversed course and cited new evidence that the industry intended its products to feed the nicotine habits of the roughly 45 million Americans who smoke.

Tobacco companies sued, and the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In 2000, the court ruled 5-4 that Congress did not authorize the FDA to regulate tobacco.

[wsheffler]

There are several arguments on whether second hand smoke kills, and I personally don?t believe environmental secondhand smoke could kill anyone. Anyone who does believe just smelling a cigarette is going to hurt them has some real problems with their brain. I don?t think it would be right for the FDA to step in and regulate tobacco. I am surprise that people still smoke because of the prices they are right now. Also, I don?t understand why people care if another person smokes anyway. Why would anyone care for some stranger?s health? My grandfather died from smoking! But that?s not going to stop me from believing in people?s rights. My point is that non smokers should mind their own business, and if you don't want the children to pick up smoking that should be enforced by the parents. what do we always have to depend on the government? I support tobacco users and always will. A person should have the right to smoke at little cost in the short-run. They know of the dangers, so what?s the problem?

[bhappy2-2]

Well great! With the FDA involved I guess we will be having E-COLI in our cigarettes! Now I will have to grow my own tobacco along with my own vegetables.

This is perfect for our FDA; a large RICH Industry that can offer them high paying jobs when they leave the FDA board. Great rewards for their kind approvals just like Big Pharma.

[ima2008]

Allowing smokers to die prematurely will help to relieve the financial strain on the social security system. Let''s leave them alone. Besides, haven''t we taxed the generally lower middle class smokers enough with regressive sales taxes?

How many people die from dietary fat related illnesses each year? Perhaps lawmakers should consider that financial toll that additional fat-eaters generate when they come down with dietary-fat-related illnesses. Why not instead tax the fast food eaters? There are millions more of us than smokers!

[rushman71]

jon2012: Did you happen to know of anyone who died because of second-hand smoke? I sure don''t? I believe that it is nothing but BS!!!

[jon2012-2009]

And, after tobacco, what will the Government regulate next?

Watch out for your Freedoms, or the Liberal Machine will run right through you.
Posted by DemWatcher at 08:53 PM : Apr 02, 2008

I think the issue is very simple and basic. You have the right to smoke but not to sicken other people by your activity. That second-hand smoke kills is a proven fact so we are not going to debate that here.
My own rights are not subordinate to your decision to injure yourself. You can look it up, I think that''s in the Declaration of Independence, the equality thing.

If you want to light up without stepping on your neighbor''s rights, hold your breath and keep the smoke in your lungs, try chewable tobacco, live like a hermit. There are a number of things you can do to protect others against exposure to smoke but the costs of doing so should be borne by you alone. I will not help to support your habit.

[jon2012-2009]

Smoking (unless you hold someone captive in 2nd hand smoke doesn''''t kill anyone other than the smoker.
Posted by joule3 at 10:48 PM : Apr 02, 2008

Are you totally stupid or just trying to spread ignorance for whatever reason? Second-hand smoke kills without the added drama of holding an unwilling victim hostage. Kids exposed to it also suffer lung problems that can bring more misery later in life.

[rushman71]

Here is a survey question.....Which would you believe more deadlier? Smoking cigarettes or alcohol?

[rf35]

Chantix is helping me quit, so I no longer really care about what the FDA chooses to do with tobacco. In my opinion, however, it''s a waste. If the government was serious about the dangers of smoking, they would ban tobacco outright. But it is a cash cow with all the taxes attached. Supposedly to pay the health care costs of smokers. Wait a minute, I thought that was what the health insurance companies did! Did I miss something here? Was a universal health care plan approved while I wasn''t looking? How stupid do they think we are? Wait, don''t answer that. Health care indeed! The government doesn''t want you to quit smoking...there''s too much money in it. Congress may be shooting itself in the foot if this gets passed. Force tobacco companies to pay "user fees" and they''ll pass the price onto the addicts, raising the price of cigarettes yet again. Pretty soon, people won''t be able to afford to smoke and will quit involuntarily. Then where is your money coming from? Idiots.

[grammawhamma]

Posted by joule3 at 10:48 PM

Exactly!! Great post.

[brianbwb-2009]

Ironic, that they wish to regulate nicotine levels, but not "tar", burn accelerators, and other additives, but just the part that makes people feel good.

Reducing nicotine levels will only make those addicted to it smoke more to reach the same level. This means more particulates and more chemical additives being inhaled.

This is another example of "self hate" being projected to others, denial of the pleasure principal, by some brainwashed politicians looking to shake down big tobacco, while further dictating what we can or cannot voluntarily eat, drink, or smoke.

[element51]

joule3...I totally agree.

[element51]

This is not a political issue and certainly not one that the so called liberals have manufactured. For years we have been lied to by big tobacco about the addictive effects of tobacco. They have knowingly spread their high profit poison with impunity. Even adding nicotine to make sure people stay hooked. It''s about time that someone step in and impose some sort of control. I am a smoker and wish I had never started but back in the 50''s all the "cool" people smoked and I wanted to be one of them. I was 15 years old. Yes it''s true that individual choice plays a part here but when you have an addiction you lose your choice. Why don''t I just quit? I''ve tried many times but have never been successful. I wish I could. But don''t try to lay this at the feet of the "liberals". There is a lot at stake here.

[demwatcher]

And, after tobacco, what will the Government regulate next?

Watch out for your Freedoms, or the Liberal Machine will run right through you.