Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Representatives of law enforcement groups, public health organizations and trade associations today gathered on Capitol Hill to urge the Senate to pass S. 1147, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 (PACT Act). This legislation will help combat online cigarette sales that have robbed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues from the states and that undermine state laws that prevent youth access to tobacco products. This bill closes gaps in current federal laws regulating “remote” or “delivery” sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products.
These organizations were joined by Sen. Herb Kohl (D‐WI) and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D‐NY), advocates of combating illegal cigarette sales. Numerous stakeholders have worked with Sen. Kohl through the years to pass the PACT Act, which was passed in the House of Representatives this May.
“The PACT Act will strengthen our tobacco laws to ensure that law enforcement has the tools they need to investigate and prosecute cigarette traffickers, said Sen. Kohl. “Each day we delay its passage, terrorists and criminals raise more money, states lose significant amounts of tax revenue, and kids have easy access to tobacco products sold over the internet.” . . .
Organizations represented at the press conference included the National Association of Convenience Stores, American Wholesale Marketers Association, National Black Police Association and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. . . .
The American Wholesale Marketers Association also released its latest findings from a study it conducted examining the prevalence of illegal Internet cigarette sales and the cost to the country. In the study AWMA found the cost to states in illegal cigarette sales could be upwards of $5 billion per year, and that with online sales there is almost no age verification at the time of purchase.
Jump to full article »
I. The MRTP Provision Is Supported By The FDCA’s Long-Standing Regulation 6Of Health Claims For Drugs, Medical Devices, And Foods............................ 6
II. The MRTP Provision Imposes A Permissible Check On False Or Misleading Speech……10 . . .
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in the government’s memorandum, the motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
Avis Rent-A-Car's famous advertising slogan "We Try Harder" was never more apt than it is right now. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids applauds Avis Budget Group, Inc. for its announcement today that beginning October 1st, 2009, all Avis and Budget rental vehicles in the United States and Canada will be smoke-free.
By prohibiting smoking in its entire North American rental fleet, Avis will not only be saving on cleaning costs, it will be making renting a car a healthier and far more pleasurable experience for its customers.
In ridding Avis and Budget rental cars of the 4000 chemicals, including over 60 carcinogens, in secondhand smoke, Avis is protecting the rights of all of its customers to breathe clean air.
Connecticut's leaders have taken decisive action to protect the state's kids and taxpayers from the devastating toll of tobacco use by increasing the state cigarette tax by $1 to $3.00 per pack, making it the second highest state cigarette tax in the nation (Rhode Island's tax is $3.46 per pack). Connecticut is also increasing its tax rates on most other tobacco products, but they still remain shamefully low compared to the state's exemplary new tax rate on cigarettes. Increased tobacco taxes are a win-win-win solution for Connecticut and every other state - a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will raise revenue to help alleviate budget shortfalls, and a political win that polls show is popular with the voters.
The evidence is clear that increasing the cigarette tax is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking
Now prohibited from advertising their products in the so-called "paid media"--television, radio, and newspapers--tobacco companies have found ways to defeat the ban through subtle but potentially more effective promotional activities.
Their activities range from donating to community projects to influencing the content of movies or shows to being the subject of positive news reports.
Advertising specialists told Newsbreak that these new approaches taken by tobacco companies may be "more expensive," but they sure "built relationships" with consumers and can therefore help maintain, if not expand, the tobacco market.
The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 stopped the elaborate marketing strategy of tobacco companies in the "paid media." Anti-tobacco advocates have reported violations of the ad ban in province-based television and radio stations, but noted that the national media have generally heeded the law.
The law, however, has been unable to prevent the invasion of "free media"--the very content of news and entertainment media--by tobacco products and brands. . . .
Tobacco companies have also maintained their presence in newspapers, particularly through their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities.
CSR activities of Fortune Tobacco made it in the news last year, for example. Major newspapers and at least one television network featured stories on the efforts of Lucio Tan, Fortune Tobacco owner, to help the tobacco farmers in the Ilocos region, where the bulk of his raw materials come from. . . .
Newspapers ran a story on Philip Morris's P2-million donation to Red Cross, which was given on Gordon's 63rd birthday in August 2008. . . .
"Promo girls" are most common in the Philippines. Pretty girls are recruited to distribute cigarettes in parties sponsored by the tobacco companies. This is the lowest level of promotional activity.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Dr. Nitzkin. Would you say this bill was written by Philip Morris?
DR. JOEL NITZKIN: I would say so. The bill was negotiated between Philip Morris and Tobacco-Free Kids, and it appears from the actual text of the bill that the Philip Morris people did their homework very well and knew exactly what they wanted, while those appointed from Tobacco-Free Kids to negotiate on behalf of the public health community really had no understanding of tobacco-related science, of how and why kids initiate tobacco use, or the steps that could be taken to stop them. So it resulted in a bill that gives the appearance of effective regulation, but not the substance. And with the exception of the graphic warnings, which were added in the Senate, not in the original House bill, every provision having to do with restriction of marketing of tobacco products falls into one of two categories: either it’s already in place as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement, or it has already been thrown out by the US Supreme Court.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And why this alliance between the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Altria?
DR. JOEL NITZKIN: Well, it appears that a political decision was made that the only way they could get tobacco regulation through the Congress is if they could get Philip Morris, our nation's largest and most dominant cigarette company, to endorse the bill. And they felt that without that endorsement, they could not get a bill through Congress. . . .
DR. JOEL NITZKIN: There were strong objections from the African American community about the menthol exclusion. To satisfy those requests, Representative Waxman wrote in a provision saying that the Science Advisory Committee to the FDA would have to consider the menthol issue and issue a ruling on it.
The problem is, the guidelines that the committee is mandated to go by, written into the law, says they can only ban things on the basis that they increase the risk of cancer or some other serious disease, or they increase the addictiveness of the tobacco product. There is nothing in the law that would allow them to ban any ingredient that’s there for the purpose of attracting people to cigarettes who otherwise would not smoke. . . .
To make things even worse, if I could continue for a moment, if somebody with a smokeless product wants to prove that their product is of lesser risk than cigarettes, they have to undergo basically impossible-to-do scientific studies. But if a cigarette company wants to market its cigarette as lower exposure, all they have to do is change the chemical composition by that small amount, and then they can advertise it as lower exposure without any scientific proof that it’s safer or less risky.
But the bill Obama signed is actually the second half of a legislative push, or maybe a putsch, that Philip Morris and its parent, Altria (MO), have been shepherding through Congress for more than a decade. In 2004, President Bush signed the first half of the legislation, which had to do with tobacco production rather than consumption. That bill, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004, eliminated the quota system for tobacco farmers that had been in place since the 1930s. Similar to its other crop insurance programs, the government had created a system to guarantee a minimum price for tobacco farmers by limiting the amount that could be grown each year.
In what is a familiar refrain, the buyout was sold to Congress and anti-smoking groups as something that was necessary to help impoverished small tobacco farmers get out of the business. . . .
In 2004 it was Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, who tried to pull back the curtain. He said at the time, "The House buyout plan is an incredible rip-off of the taxpayer, mostly to benefit a handful of large tobacco interests and tobacco companies." . . .
The South, after a few years of production declines adjusting to the new market dynamics, is again growing plenty of tobacco. And tobacco acreage, after declining following the buyout, has jumped up by more than 20 percent, including in some states where tobacco hasn't been farmed in 100 years, like Ohio and Illinois.
According to one story on the buyout, some farmers have stopped growing commodity crops like corn and wheat to switch to the wildly more profitable tobacco crop. . . .
So, five years later, the first prong of the tobacco legislation effort spearheaded by Philip Morris USA and supported by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has consolidated, boosted, and industrialized American tobacco farming and removed the price supports that made American tobacco exports unattractive on the open market. The only problem is that now that Philip Morris International is using so much American tobacco, its profits had fallen last quarter due to the stronger American dollar. But before some congressman jumps to Big Tobacco's rescue, as they seem to love to do these days, I should note that the dollar is already weakening once again.
This coming week, perhaps as early as Monday, President Obama will sign the bill into law, bringing tobacco products under federal control for the first time. Given the speed with which the bill flew through Congress this time around — the Senate vote was 79 to 17, while the House vote was 307 to 97 — the legislation seemed to have an air of inevitability about it.
But as Matthew L. Myers, the head of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told me this week, that inevitability “was a long time coming.” . . .
And while a great deal of credit goes to Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts — both of whom devoted years to getting the legislation passed — there were also these three others, strange bedfellows for sure, who were critical in making cigarette regulation come to pass: Dr. Kessler, Mr. Parrish and Mr. Myers. Take a bow, fellas.
•
Our story begins in the mid-1990s . . .
So for years, Mr. Myers had to walk a delicate line, trashing Philip Morris publicly while quietly taking advantage of Mr. Parrish’s support and connections on Capitol Hill to move the bill forward — without ever acknowledging that help. And all the while he had to persuade the rest of the public health community of something that should have been obvious: if it was a good bill, why should they be concerned that Philip Morris supported it? All that mattered was the result: cigarettes would be regulated.
PARRISH: Congratulations on the Senate vote today [on the FDA bill]. Truly historic and it WILL save lives. You were a pioneer; I only wish I had been there with you at the beginning. Better late than never, I guess. KESSLER: Congratulations to you — you were key.Email exchange last week between former Philip Morris exec Steve Parrish and former FDA commisioner Dr. David Kessler.
"It is a dream come true for Philip Morris," Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told me. "First, they make it look like they are a reformed company which really cares about reducing the toll of cigarettes and protecting the public's health; and second, they protect their domination of the market and make it impossible for potentially competitive products to enter the market." Other tobacco companies have taken to calling the bill the "Marlboro Monopoly Act of 2009."
It's hard to fathom where Congress is finding the political cover necessary to pass an industry-sponsored love letter like this one. But it's coming from Philip Morris' partner in crafting the legislation: a nonprofit anti-smoking organization called Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. . . .
So, as Roll Call recounts, Philip Morris executives made a huge shift in tactics. Rather than beat back every attempt at industry regulation, they initiated the secret Project Sunrise, an effort to help craft those regulations. Part of the strategy was to work with the very anti-smoking groups they had fought for years. Big Tobacco decided to sue for peace in order to win at the negotiating table.
Philip Morris found a willing partner in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. . . .
In other words, the United States will have two choices in the above scenario, both hairy: protect the FDA's independence by admitting it banned cloves but not menthols only to protect Philip Morris' market share or let the FDA manufacture an explanation, contrary to recent studies, by which menthol cigarettes, which are used to lure children to smoke, are just as safe as unflavored cigarettes.
"The fact that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids negotiated this bill with Philip Morris has created a very strange situation," says Siegel. . . .
The marketing and advertising restrictions in the bill also seem targeted primarily at Philip Morris' competitors. But even so, Philip Morris, with either towering disingenuousness or a wicked sense of humor, has signaled it will fight those very restrictions, which it used as a chip with legislators and the Campaign to get the bill written. With nary a mention of its role in co-writing the bill, a statement from the company called it "imperfect."
Matthew Myers, the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids' director, continues to play the fool. He told ABC News, "Our hope is that the Senate HELP committee will resist all of those efforts to weaken the legislation." It's hard to even understand what Myers means—the doublespeak surrounding the bill is so great its passage will surely be hailed as a victory for anti-tobacco forces. And if Congress could find a way to make the bill any weaker, even the Marlboro Man himself couldn't help but crack a smile.
Patrick Basham has taken on one of the most intriguing deals in Washington -- how Philip Morris USA came to support Food and Drug Administration oversight -- in a new book titled Butt Out! How Philip Morris Burned Ted Kennedy, the FDA & the Anti-Tobacco Movement.
Basham is a director at the Democracy Institute, a Libertarian public-policy research group in Washington. He is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and an adjunct lecturer at Johns Hopkins University. . . .
Both Philip Morris and the anti-tobacco groups, mostly prominently the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, have denied those allegations for years. . . .
A. Though the alliance between anti-tobacco activists and the nation's largest tobacco company has been probed by some journalists, the public denials have tended to convince those who have not dug deeply enough. As I provide chapter and verse on how this unholy alliance has developed and worked, perhaps this will galvanize opposition to this travesty of public-health legislation.
Q. What do you think is the biggest revelation to come from your book?
A. That Philip Morris is really smart at pursuing its corporate interest and that Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Henry Waxman, and their anti-tobacco partners are really dumb at pursuing the public's interest.
As I show in my "scorecard of who won and lost," Philip Morris got virtually everything it wanted, while the anti-tobacco leadership in Washington struck out. . . .
Q. What role is there for smokeless tobacco products in society?
A. I'm finishing a second book on the smokeless tobacco issue.
Scientific evidence suggests it can be a very safe and viable alternative for those who need nicotine but don't want the risks associated with smoking.
It's unfortunate that both the federal government and the anti-smoking movement won't provide truthful information to smokers about smokeless products, instead leading smokers to believe that all tobacco products are equally dangerous, which is simply untrue.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today welcomed Deputy Secretary Bill Corr and Indian Health Service Director Dr. Yvette Roubideaux to the Department of Health and Human Services. Corr and Roubideaux were confirmed unanimously by the Senate on Wednesday evening.
"Bill Corr's policy expertise and management experience will be invaluable as we work together to manage the Department and pass and implement comprehensive health reform," Secretary Sebelius said. "Bill knows our department inside and out, and I look forward to partnering with him in the years ahead."
President Barack Obama says lobbyists won't run his administration, but he picked an antitobacco lobbyist with ties to the pharmaceutical industry as the No. 2 official at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The nomination of William Corr -- former executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, where he was a registered lobbyist until September -- highlights the murkiness of Mr. Obama's antilobbyist policy. . . .
But Mr. Corr's nomination raises another question: In an era when industries often make financial donations to public-interest groups that support policies that help those industries, when are public-interest advocates conflicted by the funding that supports the causes they advocate?
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has received millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies that would benefit from the organization's work to reduce smoking because they sell products that help people quit, such as Nicorette gum and NicoDerm patches.
If confirmed, Mr. Corr would help run a department that not only regulates the drug industry through its Food and Drug Administration arm but also is its biggest payer through federal insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, said the drug-industry funding of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids creates "a win-win: They get to support the public interest at the same time they are supporting their bottom lines."
Ten years after the November 1998 state tobacco settlement, we find that most of the New England states have failed to keep their promise to use a significant portion of the settlement funds to reduce tobacco’s terrible toll on America’s children, families and communities.
David Goerlitz, the face of Winston cigarette advertisements for six years, is going through his second bout of disillusionment with the tobacco sector. The first came in November 1988 -- after Goerlitz served as the "Winston Man" for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. from 1981 to 1987. That's when he spoke out against the industry and what he considered as manufacturers' practice of targeting youth worldwide with their products.
Goerlitz has offered thousands of testimonial speeches to business and civic groups, as well as educational programs to as young an audience as elementary-school students.
Goerlitz did not work with Alan Landers, another model for Winston cigarette ads who also became an outspoken critic of the industry. Landers died while undergoing treatment for throat cancer on Feb. 27. Goerlitz has had his own health issues, including having a stroke several years ago.
Recently, Goerlitz began speaking out about how politics within the anti-tobacco and health-advocacy fields has affected their message, and how the groups have marginalized his services with their own agendas. . . .
Let the suits and experts and politicians sort the mess out, all the while being guaranteed an income for the next 25 years, including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the American Legacy Foundation.
People like me were no longer needed to do programs. I was told, in many states I previously had worked in their schools, that studies had been done and research showed that it was not effective to have speakers who were former "addicts."
When I was deposed as a fact witness in the early lawsuits, it was calculated that I had done more than 1,000 programs. Since 1998 (when the Master Settlement Agreement was established), I've done only about 250-300, which were repeat clients and schools that I had established a relationship with.
Less than 5 percent of the MSA monies went to what it was originally intended for. . . .
The grass-roots tobacco-control agencies, who had the same expectations that I had, no longer exist and they were bullied. My programs usually were/are covered by those agencies through grants. . . .
No one could grasp the enormity of the situation. It was simple -- keep making the little guy pay, keep the smokers arguing for their right to smoke and tax the hell out of them with illegal increases.
All the while not realizing the tobacco companies were in cahoots with tobacco control.
A December 2008 report by the nation's leading cancer organizations underscores the threat to women's health from this new wave of cigarette marketing to women and girls. The "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer" found that while lung cancer death rates are decreasing for men – and overall cancer death rates are decreasing for both men and women – lung cancer death rates have yet to decline among all women. A key reason cited was the sharp increase in smoking initiation among young women and girls during the late 1960s and 1970s, when cigarette brands such as Philip Morris' Virginia Slims were created for and aggressively marketed to women.1
The latest cigarette marketing to women and girls threatens a repeat of this harmful history, but it is preventable.
The Congress has a significant role to play by passing legislation granting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing and sale of tobacco products. This legislation would curtail many of the industry's most harmful practices that have been used to target women and girls. . . .
The targeting of the female market reached new levels in 1968 when Philip Morris introduced Virginia Slims, the first cigarette brand created specifically for women. With the slogan, "You've come a long way, baby," this marketing campaign cynically appropriated the themes and goals of the women's liberation movement – independence and empowerment – to sell a product that, through addiction, disease, and death, would have the opposite effect. Subsequent Virginia Slims campaigns would continue the theme with slogans such as "It's a Woman Thing" and "Find Your Voice," the latter featuring women of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Six years after the introduction of Virginia Slims and other brands aimed at the female market, the rate of smoking initiation of 12-year-old girls had increased by 110 percent. Increases among teenage girls of other ages were also substantial.4
As women's concerns about the health risk of smoking grew, the tobacco companies in the 1970s began marketing "low tar" and "light" cigarettes to women as a "softer" or "safer" option.
Tobacco companies continued to market these products despite being aware that the actual or implied health claims in their ads were either misleading or false. Women smokers are more likely than their male counterparts to smoke "light" and "ultra-light" cigarettes (63 percent vs. 46 percent), and women are more likely than men to switch to these cigarettes.5