Supporters, critics debate proposed FDA oversight of tobacco
By Janet Patton
The Associated Press
February 28, 2007
Proposed legislation to keep cigarettes out of millions of young hands might instead create government-approved packs of toxins, critics said Tuesday.
Legislation introduced earlier this month by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., would for the first time give the Food and Drug Administration authority over the contents and marketing of cigarettes and other tobacco products.
While opponents charged that the latest attempt to regulate tobacco does too little or goes in the wrong direction, several public health experts and a religious leader spoke Tuesday at a Senate committee hearing in support of the move, which they say could help prevent the deaths of an estimated 1,200 people who die every day from smoking-related illnesses.
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, called the bill "livesaving legislation." Land said Southern Baptists have opposed the tobacco industry publicly since 1932 and see this bill as one of their main lobbying priorities for this Congress.
"We are particularly concerned about deceptive advertising to children, but it has also seeped into the consciousness of the faith-based community that this is a very, very destructive product," said Land.
Experts on addiction said the cigarette industry's targeting of women and children has increased in recent years despite the multibillion-dollar Master Settlement Agreement with states that ostensibly curtailed such marketing.
"This industry is clearly going after the at-risk population," said Dr. Greg Connolly of the Harvard School of Public Health. "Has the industry changed after the MSA? Yeah, and not for the better."
The Kennedy-Waxman legislation would force cigarette makers to reveal the contents of their products and any manipulation of tobacco, stop them from making health claims not supported by science, and outlaw marketing to children. The bill has the backing of Marlboro maker Philip Morris, which has the lion's share of the market, but other cigarette companies have opposed the efforts to put limits on advertising.
"This has the potential to save literally thousands of lives," said Matt Myers, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Myers said a new survey by his group showed that 69 percent of voters support FDA regulation of tobacco, "and support is extraordinarily strong in tobacco-growing regions."
While there is widespread congressional support as well to reduce smoking-related deaths, several Republican senators debated whether the bill will have that effect.
In questioning that was at times heated, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a physician, argued that cigarette regulation might be better left to the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice, rather than an agency charged with protecting public health.
"Isn't that giving it an FDA stamp of approval?" said Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming, the ranking Republican of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Enzi alleged that even though the bill would prevent cigarette makers from explicitly saying so, approval would be implied simply because the product is on the market.
Dr. Alan Blum, director of the University of Alabama's Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society, agreed and said the bill does not go far enough. "Placing it under the FDA is unwise. (Consumers) are going to believe a problem has been taken care of. They are going to assume the harm has been reduced. ... There is no evidence this bill will save any lives at all. It could well be renamed the Marlboro Protection Act and will prove destructive to the public health."
Despite such questions, the long-sought legislation is likely to go forward in the Democrat-controlled Congress. House committee hearings are promised for this spring.
"What I sense is that finding fault with the FDA is a way of stopping any progress," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "The perfect is the enemy of the good but around here 'fairly adequate' might be progress."
