Senate to vote on tobacco changes

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Sweeping changes in how the government controls tobacco content and marketing are likely to be approved by the U.S. Senate this week, despite a strong last-ditch effort by tobacco interests and skepticism from some experts that smokers won’t kick their habit.

The bill, passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives in April and due for a Senate vote as early as today, would give the Food and Drug Administration broad new authority over tobacco.

“It’s a massive move in public policy,” said Andrew Taylor, a political science professor at North Carolina State University.

The bill would permit the FDA to limit the amount of nicotine in a product, bar advertising and marketing aimed at children and prevent companies from making unsubstantiated claims about “reduced risk” items.

Anti-smoking activists are ecstatic, predicting that if the new law is rigorously enforced, “all the evidence is it will prompt more people to quit rather than switching to low-tar cigarettes or other tobacco products as has happened in the past,” said Matthew Myers, the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Not everyone is convinced.

“The FDA is going to be giving approval of cigarettes. I think there’s really going to be a public perception that cigarettes are now safer,” said Michael Siegel, professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.

“I think there’s going to be a public perception that there’s now a safer product. And it’s not going to be a safer product,” Siegel said.

This debate has been going on for decades.

In 1964, the Surgeon General concluded that smoking carried severe health risks, but under pressure from tobacco interests, lawmakers the next year approved what anti-smoking interests saw as tepid health warning labels on cigarettes.

Little by little, other measures were adopted: a ban on television advertising in 1971, stronger warning labels in 1984 and so on. The effort staggered in 2000, however, when the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the FDA lacked authority to regulate tobacco.

This year, with a strong Democratic congressional majority and a sympathetic president, anti-tobacco activists made their crusade a priority.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who has led the Senate anti-tobacco fight, described the goal: “It’s time for the tobacco industry to come up with a new business model — and this bill will force them to.”

In the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to cut off debate, progress has been difficult.

If the bill becomes law, the FDA would set up a new tobacco division, hire scientists, write regulations and collect fees from tobacco companies. Consumers would first see changes in packaging.

Warning labels would be larger, covering half the package, and more graphic. Eventually they could include pictures.

Cigarettes could no longer be labeled “light” or “low-tar.” So although Marlboro Lights and Camel Lights could still be sold, they’d have different names or new packaging.

Once the FDA begins regulating content, the chemical makeup of cigarettes could change too, affecting their taste and, some hope, their health impacts.

Cigarettes could no longer have a “characterizing” flavor other than menthol, though companies could still inject flavors as part of their blends. Reynolds American, for example, includes such ingredients as brown sugar, cinnamon, patchouli oil and rosemary in its products.

And prices would go up, as tobacco companies pass along the government’s “user fees” to consumers.

Critics contend that tobacco should not be part of the FDA’s mission.

“When the FDA approves a product, Americans expect the product to be safe,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, “but as we all know, there is no such thing as a safe cigarette.”