Full Forecaste

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Editorial

Federal tobacco oversight rising from the ashes

Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:49 AM PDT

Font Size:
 
 

July 24 Daily News editorial

Over the past decade, tobacco companies have managed to beat back repeated efforts in Congress to bring their products under U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight. But Big Tobacco’s winning streak is in jeopardy this summer. Committees in both the House and Senate have voted overwhelmingly to advance legislation that would give the federal agency the authority to regulate tobacco as an addictive drug.

The legislation appears to be headed for easy approval in the House, perhaps within the week. Its fate is less certain in the Senate, but with 57 senators signed on as co-sponsors, there’s cause for optimism. The legislation enjoys bipartisan support in both chambers. Only the clock is working against it. Both the House and Senate need to bring this legislation to the floor before Congress adjourns Aug. 10 for its summer recess to ensure that the measure doesn’t stall and die at the end of the year.

It’s time that federal health authorities finally be given the power to regulate nicotine. It’s been seven years since a presidential commission unanimously recommended that the FDA be given this regulatory authority.

The agency, in fact, has resisted calls from anti-smoking advocates to regulate nicotine for at least a couple of decades, insisting that it had no such authority so long as tobacco companies avoided making claims that their products were providing health benefits. The FDA reversed itself in 1996, when it classified tobacco products as “drugs” and “devices” subject to federal regulation. But four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the agency was wrong to claim that regulatory authority — that Congress would have to grant it.

Congress’ initial opposition to granting the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products has softened in the years since. A 2007 Harvard School of Public Health study showing that the tobacco industry may have manipulated nicotine content did much to soften congressional opposition. Indeed, the regulatory legislation now pending in the House and Senate was introduced shortly after the release of that study, which found that nicotine levels in cigarettes had steadily increased between 1997 and 2005.

The pending legislation would not give the FDA the authority either to ban nicotine or outlaw tobacco. But the agency could force reductions of nicotine levels in tobacco products and direct tobacco companies to remove harmful additives from their products. It's a workable compromise — one supported by many one-time opponents of regulation, including tobacco’s Philip Morris.

Tobacco-related illnesses claim more than 400,000 lives and cost the nation $94 billion in health-care bills every year, according to the American Cancer Society. The federal oversight this legislation would allow is only sensible and long overdue.

Previous Next

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:07 AM:

" My only question, and one this editorial completely ignored, is what took the Democrat-controlled House and Senate this long to act? The Demoncrats have ignored this issue for most of the 50-plus years they have been in control of the House and Senate. I wonder how many votes were bought by campaign dollars? A Demoncrat doing something like that? Say it isn't so Obama, say it isn't so. "

Cheney119 wrote on Jul 24, 2008 4:39 PM:

" How about some credit for Gregoire? She lead the way to the tabacco settlement. That's why she's governor. The republicans have defended the scum tabacco companies for 50 years. Under Ratface Bush the FDA is simply joke, they have politicised science to the point of completely ignoring their duties. TDN Bad Boy is always just looking for a democrat blame and then rant about it, regardless or any facts. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:14 PM:

" Well let's see. The senate and congress write the laws and vote on them. So let's see, it is Bush's problem. How long has he been in office? How long have Baird, Cantwell and Murray been in office? How come none of them have every written a law that would rein in Big Tobacco. Oh yes. Let's remember Gregoire. She took a settlement that cost us millions. So really she was a friend of Big Tobacco. As for the Republicans defending Big Tobacco, I can only ask what state John Edwards is from. Until the 1990s, the Demoncrats owned the south (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Wallace, Lester Maddux and hundreds of others from the South} protected the farm subsidies for Big Tobacco. It's funny how the Liberal Democrats like to forget that they have owned the Senate and Congress since World War II except for a six-year stretch when the public wisely realized they had to take control of the Senate and Congress away from Bill Clinton and Queen Hillary. Right now it's in the hands of Peolosi and Reid who pull the strings on puppets like Murray, Cantwell, and Baird. As for facts, those are the facts, not opinion, as stated above about the FDA. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is up to Congress not the FDA to reign in Big Tobacco. Those are the facts. The Liberal Demoncrats in Congress won't do it. What's new when their a votes to sell? "

Cheney119 wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:57 PM:

" The congress writes the laws yes. But the president and the executive branch enforce the laws. You talk a good game but you just blather. You basically have no understanding how anything works. Do you honestly (boy there's a stretch) believe that you could pass a law in the senate that would not be fillibustered by a republican senator. Moral guys like Strom Thurman or Mitch McConnell, or Jesse Helms, come on not one prayer. You really make me laugh. Not one thing you ever write has any fiber of truth. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:29 AM:

" Once again Cheney you ignore the facts. Clinton turned the FDA loose in 1996 as the editorial says. The Supreme Court ruled that the FDA did not have the right to operate in that fashion, that it was unconstitutional. Do you understand that? Clinton tried to circumvent the constitution, just as he did with several other government agencies. Why? Because the Senate and Congress have never done the right thing here. The Demoncrats have never tried to do this the right way. Why? Because Southern senators like John Edwards would not allow it. Your party has had the control it needs to work out a law. Yes there are procedures in the senate. But Sen. McCain has never had a problem crossing the aisle to work for laws. He did with Kennedy on immigration, with Feingold on campaign reform, and at other times. The Demoncrats have never tried to work out a bipartisan bill on this. I guess there is no truth to the FACT that the Clinton tried to circumvent the law. Or the fact that the Demoncrats have never tried to reign in Big Tobacco by closing farm subsidies. You want to blame Bush but you missed the point. He never had anything to do with it. Congress hasn't acted. It's too bad you don't understand simple facts. "

Top Jobs
More Top Jobs
Top Garage Sales
More Top Garage Sales
Top Rentals
More Top Rentals