Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Editorial

FDA takes a stand on cigarettes

Last week the federal Food and Drug Administration quietly did something that it has never done before. For the first time in its history, the agency charged with protecting the public from harmful foods and medicines rejected a bid by the tobacco industry to put new products on the market, based on the fact that they posed a serious risk to public health.

Under a 2009 law supported by the Obama administration, the agency was granted the power to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products, including cigars, loose rolling tobacco, chewing tobacco and snuff. But until now it had never used that authority to block the sale of such products.

So it was something of a milestone when the agency announced Tuesday that it had authorized two new kinds of Newport cigarettes made by the Lorillard Tobacco Company but rejected four other products manufactured by companies it declined to name. Agency officials said the law forbade them from identifying the rejected products.

The FDA's action may seem relatively modest given the scale of the destruction wrought by tobacco products. But in fact it represents a sea change in the agency's attitude toward cigarettes. Before the 2009 law was passed, cigarette manufacturers were free to operate virtually without any meaningful federal oversight or regulation. Individual states were allowed to determine where and how tobacco products were sold within their borders, but they had no control over the ingredients those products contained.

Moreover, all this was happening at a time when cigarettes increasingly were being recognized as a leading cause of death in this country. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that smoking kills more people each year than HIV-AIDS, illegal drugs, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides and murders combined. Some 443,000 Americans die annually from smoking-related illnesses; worldwide, tobacco kills about 6 million people a year. The World Health Organization estimates that every 6.5 seconds a current or former smoker dies.

Yet the FDA's announcement marked the first time in history that a federal agency has ever told a tobacco manufacturer that it couldn't market a new cigarette because of the threat it posed to public health. That's a testament to the political clout the tobacco lobby traditionally has wielded, but as public attitudes toward smoking — and the staggering health-care costs associated with it — continue to evolve, the FDA's action offers hope the country may finally be ready to back stricter standards for cigarette manufacturers.

The four products rejected by the agency as too dangerous to market were all found to pose public health risks above and beyond comparable products already on the market. Unfortunately, the FDA didn't reveal the kinds or amounts of chemicals they contained.

That makes it difficult to judge precisely why those products were considered unsafe, but more importantly it leaves up in the air the whole question of what level of risk the agency deems unacceptable when it reviews new products. Given the huge number of people who succumb to smoking-related illnesses each year, it's hard to imagine any amount of nicotine, menthol, formaldehyde or other toxic chemicals contained in cigarettes that could reasonably be construed as harmless.

Still, the FDA has taken an important first step toward greater oversight of the tobacco industry in order to keep manufacturers' most dangerous products off the market. That, along with public health campaigns aimed at dissuading teenagers from taking up the habit and more restrictions on where and when adults can smoke, may finally begin to push down the toll in lives taken by tobacco as a result of illnesses that are largely preventable.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Mint-flavored, but more addictive
    Mint-flavored, but more addictive

    Our view: Having found that menthol cigarettes pose an increased risk to public health, the FDA should move to ban them

  • Bowing to North Korea's film critic
    Bowing to North Korea's film critic

    By most accounts, "The Interview," the comedy that revolves around a bumbling plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, is not high art but the sort of sophomoric, gross-out shtick that Hollywood produces in bulk these days. But most Americans will likely never be able to judge...

  • Welcome back, Caret
    Welcome back, Caret

    In selecting University of Massachusetts System President Robert Caret as its next chancellor, the University System of Maryland has kept up a tradition of leadership by those with deep ties to the state and its higher education traditions. Mr. Caret spent 29 years as a professor, dean,...

  • Good riddance, 113th
    Good riddance, 113th

    Imagine if you ran a business but you didn't tell your customers exactly what they would be charged for your products or services until nearly the end of the year. Well, you don't have to work your imagination too hard because that's essentially what Congress just did. In one of their last...

  • Torture is not a partisan issue
    Torture is not a partisan issue

    I have been researching interrogation and teaching military ethics to midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy for years. I looked forward to the release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA interrogation program to answer some specific questions raised in the course...

  • Addiction services needed more than statistics
    Addiction services needed more than statistics

    It is so frustrating to read about policymakers and their obsession with identifying the "numbers of heroin users." While they're busy counting, addicts are dying while on waiting lists for treatment.

  • A compromise on Howard County nutritional standards?
    A compromise on Howard County nutritional standards?

    Lost in the noise of the debate over Howard County Government's nutritional standards regarding sugary drinks are a few key questions. First, when, if at all, should government act in response to growing evidence linking certain behaviors to premature mortality and increased health care...

  • USM chancellor [Poll]
    USM chancellor [Poll]
Comments
Loading