"Low Tar" Cigarette Claim Up In Smoke
FTC Ends Endorsement Of Test For Nicotine, Tar In Cigarettes
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Feds Nix 'Low-Tar' Cigs Claim
Many smokers believe that "light" or "low tar" cigarettes are healthier. The federal government says the terms do not provide meaningful information on tar and nicotine levels. Nancy Cordes reports.
-
Photo
More than four decades after the government endorsed tests like this, of cigarettes' tar and nicotine levels, it did an about-face. (CBS)
-
Photo Essay
Smoking Bans
Some breathe deeply while others fume as tough anti-smoking rules catch on.
-
Interactive
HealthWatch
Explore health issues including AIDS, cancer and antibiotics.
Ever since the 1960s, cigarette makers have tried to seduce smokers worried about their health with products labeled “light,” “mild” or “low-tar.” They’ve been basing such claims on mechanical tests that measure tar and nicotine levels.
Today, 42 years after it endorsed those tests, the federal government essentially called them … bogus.
It said the tests “do not provide meaningful information on the amounts of tar and nicotine smokers receive from cigarettes.” It’s a conclusion scientists reached seven years ago when they found the tests were easily and frequently manipulated.
Now the Federal Trade Commission wants tobacco companies to remove its stamp of approval for those tests from their ads and packaging.
The proposal could open the door for the FTC to sue companies that call their products “light” or “low tar,” implying they’re somehow safer, Cordes reports.
Matt Myers with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says studies show more than half of all smokers still mistakenly believe that switching to cigarettes with slogans like “light and luscious,” will reduce their risk of getting sick.
“The FTC hasn't banned the term ‘light’ and ‘low tar.’ But it has put tobacco companies on notice. If they use those terms or the tar and nicotine numbers they risk lawsuit by the federal government,” Myers said.
There is a bill working its way through Congress that would ban the terms “light” and “low-tar” outright. We asked the tobacco companies what they thought about this new proposal.
Their response? “We’re studying it.”
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from CBS Evening News
- Latest in CBS Evening News
- MJ Tributes, From Pop Icons To Global Fans
- Serial Killer Shatters S.C. Town's Psyche
- National Mall Showing Its Age



any idiot who smokes a "normal" cigarette knows you have to suck the crapp out of a "light" cigarette
we don''t need to spend millions in taxes to tell us any different.
Funny is it, that smokers pay billions in taxes on cigarettes because they''re harmful to them, but if they wanted to quit??? It would cost them hundreds more in quit smoking aids.The stuff is so expensive that they have to keep them locked up in the drug stores. And forget the prescription aids...they''re way to expensive and the bulk of smokers don''t have insurance.
I''m thinking maybe the government can''t afford smokers to quit. They make too much money off them.
I understand the stump that most non-smokers climb aboard, those who have never smoked, and some of those who, like myself have quit. They are for the most part quite vocal about "second hand smoke", etc.
What I fail to understand why these same people who "fan" themselves, hack and cough, and make all the "comments", will never utter a word about the diesel truck on the highway spewing more toxic material into the air in one mile than I did in a lifetime of smoking. They never give a thought to how much they pollute the air by driving their gas guzzler to work each day. Can anyone explain???
I guess the tobacco industry isn''t paying lobbyists to buy off our congress anymore.
in. Can''t get around it. It is built into the society and I hope we change that. As far as diesels polluting more than cigarettes, they probably do. However, they don''t come in and sit across from me when I''m having a meal at the deli.
Smoke is carbon monoxide. HELLOOOOOOOOO!!!
No cigarette is good for you. But if you smoke just be a considerate smoker... I am...
Today, the FTC ''...admitted the test it used to show those cigarettes are low in tar is meaningless''! And, they want the cigarette producers to adjust their packaging to reflect these facts.
But, ''it''s a conclusion scientists reached seven years ago when they found the tests were easily and frequently manipulated.''
Therefore, I wonder:
First, why in God''s name did they not notify the public about this SEVEN years ago?!! Are FTC officials THAT stupid?!! Or, is it something else---like bribery, perhaps?!
Second, in light of this, how is the public expected to have any trust or faith in the FTC''s ability to do it''s job?!!
Finally, I really believe the only way to effectively get this government operational is mass ''pink slipping'' when the next administration takes office.
But this time do things differently, actually hire competent people and make sure managers are incorruptible!
Posted by LL2OWT at 08:03 PM : Jul 08, 2008
I didn''t quit till the day I died. Thats a sure cure. Fortunately I was in the ER and on the table when it happened and the Lord wasn''t ready for me. (I don''t want to guess on that one) Been smoking since 1952 but haven''t even wanted one since the "CURE"
Posted by mgeg1
I think it is your right to put in your body whatever you want. A lot of people complain about second hand smoke. Thats where being considerate comes in.
cigs as I believed they had less tar. Two years after I quit I had a spontaneous pneumo thorax, which is a
collapsed lung and almost died. I believe if I never
smoked that would not have happened. My lungs are clean now and luckily I never developed cancer.
Remember the neocons have outright said one of their goals is to get the people of the US to view the government as ineffective and a waste of money, and they have taken steps to ensure that the government works as poorly as possible. Of course their agenda is that when they suggest eliminating government oversight of business, people will welcome them as liberators and heroes. Lets show them otherwise and insist the government regulatory structure be rebuilt, staffed with top-notch people, and made an advocate for the people and a formidable adversary for big business.
Exactly. I don''t smoke either but if I choose to do so that''s my problem.
For the record, I don''t smoke either. I hate the smell of smoke and I do appreciate smoke free restaurants. But if smokers are outside, they should have the right to smoke. I personally think that they should be able to smoke in bars, if the bar owner allows it. But the government has gotten so big that it is stepping into private business''s rights to make decisions.
Complainers about people who smoke outside are just trying to get everyone to act like them. Those types of people are the biggest hypocrites.
I guess the tobacco industry isn''''t paying lobbyists to buy off our congress anymore.
Posted by fstop100 at 08:31 PM : Jul 08, 2008
You know who fought most of the law suits for the killing tobacco cos. Ken Starr . Now that the republicans got in the last 8 yrs nothing but good for the tobacco co.the Killing Machine and they know it, but lets face it money is more important than people
Posted by starleo14672 at 10:20 PM : Jul 08, 2008
Times are Changing ...... and YES WE CAN. Cheers!
Nobody gets out alive anyways so you might as well pick a poison, if it makes you comfortable, and get on with it. God knows when you''ll die, just keep busy doing good works and you''ll find yourself living longer and fuller lives.
You all should worry more about what comes out of your mouths than what goes in it.
I thank you for smoking away from me. I will try to move upwind of you
cigs as I believed they had less tar. Two years after I quit I had a spontaneous pneumo thorax, which is a
collapsed lung and almost died. I believe if I never
smoked that would not have happened. My lungs are clean now and luckily I never developed cancer.
Posted by laura552 at 02:02 AM : Jul 09, 2008
In 1987 I quit smoking and in1992 I developed lung cancer, my oncologist said it takes 15 yrs to rid your lungs of nicotine of a long term smoker, and I was lucky I survived lung cancer, and have never put a cigarette back in mouth and never will again. These cigarette companies know what they are doing in low tar and all these adds what they are doing is putting more addictive ingredients in to get you, and they make money off killing you slowly.
Posted by andor3 at 03:48 AM : Jul 09, 2008
+ report abu
yea I second that and fast before Bush and friends with his corporations do us all in.
I think you may be the type of non-smoker to which I refer. Do you react with the same fervor when you pass
a coal burning power plant or follow a diesel truck down the highway or consider the millions of vehicles spewing carbon dioxide on a continuous basis?? Glad you don''t smoke. Keep it that way, but please answer my question. Tnx
Posted by joeybergas
Words spoken by a true idiot. Concentrating on a smoke free environment? Look at the health nazis out in California. They are trying to put out the cigarettes, and now they got smoke billowing everywhere from fires. Is that any healthier? I don''t think so. Your going to die anyway, so shut up and live life to the fullest.
Posted by piercetheval
------------
Are you referring to second hand smoke?
Well with thinking, we should ban alcohol, and high fat foods, high caloric foods, high sugar content foods, high sodium foods. All of these lead to some sort of ailment or diease that the taxpayers eventual have to pay for. So all the Obese(whether highly or slightly), over weight people, people who are diabetic you fall into the same category as smokers, whether you smoke or not according to joeybergas-ology.
-
by joeybergas
July 9, 2008 5:36 PM PDT
- mysticstone...... this article was talking about smokers.....if it was talking about diabetics or fat people i would have addressed them....i have a problem with any and all self destructive behavior... and all these idiots that say you have to die of something...go watch somebody die of lung cancer.....wanna ban etoh? fine with me....ban all that ***.... i dont care... but my MAIN concern in all honesty is other people having to pay for your self destructive behavior.... if i didnt have to pay for it then i wouldnt care that you smoked.....honestly i rarely have a problem avoiding smokers, even in restaurants... i dont think that is the issue... purely the fact that they DO BECOME A BURDEN on the society..which is already burdened enough..
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 39 Comments