FORCES Hits the Bullseye on FDA Tobacco Legislation; Shows More Insight than Top Anti-Smoking Groups Combined

In a concise and insightful summary of the broader implications of the proposed FDA tobacco legislation, FORCES International has hit the nail on the head, presenting a picture of the true meaning of the legislation and the reason why Philip Morris supports it, something which the leading anti-smoking groups (which are arm-in-arm with Philip Morris supporting this legislation) seem unable to comprehend.

FORCES presents the broader implications of the legislation in several bullet points, which include the following:

• "Philip Morris had a big part in the writing of the law proposal.
• Once the FDA regulates cigarettes, ALL the responsibilities of the presumed and never demonstrated “tobacco-related” deaths will be on FDA’s shoulders.
• The rest of the tobacco industry opposes the FDA regulation because PM is far ahead of the rest of the industry in the research for a safer cigarette. ...
• After PM has developed the safer cigarette, it will have an edge on the competition. Remember: industries would “kill” for a market share point! And in the case of the cigarette market, one market share point means very many millions of dollars a year return.
• The FDA will have no choice but to approve a “safer” cigarette. And since people are inebriated with authority, once such an “authority” DOES say that the cigarette is safer (because it is in charge and it has to show that “it’s doing something”), the public WILL believe it because – let’s face it – foolishness is a common human characteristic. ..."

The Rest of the Story

In this situation, FORCES is right on the money in its analysis of the FDA legislation. FORCES seems to have the ability to comprehend the broader and most important implications of this policy proposal, something which the leading anti-smoking groups do not appear able to do. It seems to me that it is a sad state of affairs when FORCES has a better understanding of the policy considerations underlying the proposed legislation than the health groups which are proposing it.

Let's take these important bullet points one by one.

Philip Morris had a big part in the writing of the law proposal.

It is very clear that this bill was negotiated between two major parties - the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (representing the health community) and Philip Morris - by way of Congressional mediation. So yes - Philip Morris did have a big part in the crafting of the proposal (whether they drafted any of the language is not something I know). This basic information is something which none of the major health groups, to the best of my knowledge, has ever disclosed to the public or to their constituents. Yet it is critical that the public and the constituents be aware of this information in order to be able to evaluate the proposal appropriately.

Once the FDA regulates cigarettes, ALL the responsibilities of the presumed and never demonstrated “tobacco-related” deaths will be on FDA’s shoulders.

Absolutely true. Once cigarettes are placed under the regulatory authority of the government, then the burden and responsibility of protecting the public, and therefore, the responsibility for the harms caused by cigarettes, shifts largely from the tobacco companies to the government. If FDA assumes the authority to require cigarettes to be less harmful and less addictive, as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids claims it will, then the FDA bears the responsibility if cigarettes continue to kill and addict people.

What the major health groups supporting this legislation don't seem to appreciate is that to regulate means "to permit." The FDA, by assuming jurisdiction over the safety of tobacco products, is essentially permitting cigarette companies to kill people. So what if the product contains less nitrosamines or less nicotine? It's still going to be killing people. The only difference is that it will now be killing people with the FDA's blessing.

This is an unacceptable conundrum which the FDA itself recognizes, which FORCES recognizes, but which the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and its partners in deception seem to have no appreciation of.

The rest of the tobacco industry opposes the FDA regulation because PM is far ahead of the rest of the industry in the research for a safer cigarette.

This is one of the major reasons why Philip Morris supports the legislation. Philip Morris probably stands to benefit the most from the "reduced exposure" provisions of the legislation, which would presumably allow it to roll out Marlboro Ultra Smooth (which has already been test-marketed) or something similar with an advertising campaign that emphasizes how the product will reduce exposure to this and that smoke constituent.

After PM has developed the safer cigarette, it will have an edge on the competition. Remember: industries would “kill” for a market share point! And in the case of the cigarette market, one market share point means very many millions of dollars a year return.

This follows from the above point.

The FDA will have no choice but to approve a “safer” cigarette. And since people are inebriated with authority, once such an “authority” DOES say that the cigarette is safer (because it is in charge and it has to show that “it’s doing something”), the public WILL believe it because – let’s face it – foolishness is a common human characteristic.

This is perhaps the most important point of all. I would go further than FORCES. I would go so far as to say that simply by virtue of assuming jurisdiction over the "safety" of cigarettes, the public is going to believe that cigarettes are safer. But certainly, when the FDA does take action - any action - the public is going to believe that cigarettes have been made a safer product. This despite the fact that there is no evidence that removing any particular constituents from cigarettes will make it safer. The public will essentially be used as guinea pigs to test out the effect of this regulatory approach. The answer will not be evident for years. In the mean time, people will believe that the product is safer.

The upshot of all of this is that the legislation will perpetuate the fraud that tobacco companies were found guilty of committing by implying that certain of their products were safer, except it will shift the perpetration of that fraud from the tobacco companies to the government.

Equally important is the fact that when the public's perception of the safety of cigarettes increases, so does cigarette consumption and smoking rates. When the public believes that cigarette smoking has been made safer, more people are going to smoke than would have otherwise. In other words, the proposed legislation will likely increase smoking, not decrease it. This could well be a public health nightmare, rather than the saving of countless lives as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids claims or the saving of millions of lives as the American Medical Association claims.