"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.
-
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.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."





- 1
- 2
- next
See all 37 CommentsWell 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.
Posted by piercetheval
------------
Are you referring to second hand smoke?
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 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.
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.
I thank you for smoking away from me. I will try to move upwind of you
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 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!
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.
Exactly. I don''t smoke either but if I choose to do so that''s my problem.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 37 Comments