Government Regulation of Tobacco
Case Study: Government Regulation of Tobacco Products
Read the Government Regulation of Tobacco Products Discussion Case (PROVIDED BELOW). In a one- to two-page paper (not including the title and reference pages) you must:
· Determine if the orientation of Reynolds toward tobacco regulation is cooperative or at arm’s length and explain why.
· Determine if the orientation of Altria toward tobacco regulation is cooperative or at arm’s length and explain why.
· Explain the differences between the two company’s positions.
· Describe the public policy inputs, goals, tools, and effects that can be found in this Discussion Case.
You must use at least one scholarly source in addition to the text and your paper must be formatted according to APA style guidelines. Government Regulation of Tobacco Products
On June 23, 2009, President Barack Obama, an occasional smoker since his teens, signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. “I know—I was one of those teenagers,” said Obama. “I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it’s been with you for a long time.” The new law provided the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the power not only to forbid advertising geared toward children but also to regulate what is in cigarettes. This was the first time in U.S. history that tobacco products were under federal control.
The U.S. Surgeon General, the top medical officer in the country, issued his report in 1964 declaring cigarettes a health hazard, yet as late as 2009 one in five people in the United States still smoked and more than 400,000 died each year from smoking-related diseases. An additional 1,000 Americans under the age of 18 became regular smokers each day, according to conservative government estimates.
Congressional efforts to regulate tobacco received stiff opposition, as expected, from the tobacco manufacturing industry. Reynolds America, parent company of the nation’s largest tobacco manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, attacked the proposal legislation on the grounds that the FDA was incapable of enforcing it. The company ran a series of television advertisements that showed a plate-spinning routine to illustrate its point that the FDA was overwhelmed and already unable to properly oversee its core mission of ensuring food and drug safety. “Their own scientific experts warn that the FDA can’t do their job properly and warn that lives could be at risk,” the ad said.
In response to these ads, William V. Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an antismoking advocacy group, said it was no surprise that Reynolds was behind these ads because the company had been “the worst offender when it comes to marketing tobacco products to children.” In 2008, six states sued R.J. Reynolds con- tending that a promotion in Rolling Stone magazine violated a 1998 agreement not to use cartoons in cigarette advertisements. Rolling Stone came to R.J. Reynolds’ defense claiming that the section in the magazine was “editorial content” that just happened to start and end with the Camel logo and health warnings. But a critic of the ad, Earth Times, a 24/7 online news source, was far from convinced: “Rolling Stone may claim that the four-page cartoon spread is not part of the Camel ad that surrounds it, but the cartoon’s content, layout, and placement make it appear to be an integral part of the ad. That can’t be an accident. Why would the spread begin and end with a Surgeon General’s warning if it wasn’t a cigarette ad?”
But not all cigarette manufacturers opposed the new regulation. Breaking ranks with its industry, the Altria Group, parent company of Philip Morris, was a behind-the-scenes supporter of this law as it was debated in Congress. Altria decided to support the legislation since it believed that the law would likely pass anyway, and it wanted a “seat at the table” as the bill was being discussed in Congress. Most important for Altria was to make sure that cigarettes would not be outlawed entirely, which was a provision in an early version of the bill.
Leading the charge as the chief sponsor of the legislation was Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, who said, “This long overdue grant of authority to [the] FDA to regulate tobacco products means that the agency can finally take the actions needed to protect our people from the most deadly of all consumer products.” The legislation enabled the FDA to set standards for cigarettes, regulate chemicals in cigarette smoke, and out- law most tobacco flavorings. Flavorings were seen as a way of luring first-time smokers, usually teenagers, to try cigarettes. The FDA, under this new law, could also study whether to eliminate the use of menthol in cigarettes. Menthol cigarettes were used by three-quarters of all black smokers, who have a disproportionately high incidence of lung cancer.
The new law also targeted advertisements of tobacco products. Colorful advertisements and store displays would be replaced by black-and-white-only text aimed at reducing the appeal of the product to youths. All tobacco advertisements were banned within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds and, by 2012, a larger and graphic health warn- ing had to appear on all cigarette packages, occupying 50 percent of the space on each package of cigarettes.
While the FDA was not given the power to ban nicotine from cigarettes, it could man- date a reduction in the levels of this addictive chemical. Health advocates predicted that the new FDA standards could eventually reduce some of the 60 cancer-causing carcinogens and 4,000 harmful toxins in cigarette smoke or make cigarettes taste so bad they deterred users.
The tobacco industry warned that the new law could expose the industry to increased financial risks through lower sales and might violate the companies’ first amendment rights to free speech to advertise their products, an issue that is likely to be tested in the courts.
During the signing of the bill into law, Obama said, “Kids today don’t just start smoking for no reason. They’re aggressively targeted as customers by the tobacco industry. They’re exposed to a constant and insidious barrage of advertising where they live, where they learn, and where they play.”
