FDA Orders New, Straightforward Cigarette Warning Labels

Submitted by Anne Landman on

New cig warningStarting September, 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will require new, updated health warnings on cigarettes. The 25 year-old, plain-text Surgeon General warnings will be out, replaced with updated, straightforward messages like "WARNING: Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers," "WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive" and "WARNING: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease." The text will be much larger than the old Surgeon General's warnings, and will be accompanied by powerful pictures, like photos of corpses, diseased lungs and oral cancer. To choose the warnings, FDA reviewed relevant scientific literature, considered over 1,700 public comments and performed a survey of 18,000 citizens. The new warnings will be rotated to keep them fresh. They will cover the top 50 percent of the front and rear panels of cigarette packs, and in cigarette ads, the warnings must occupy at least 20 percent of the upper portion of each ad. The new warnings were authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act that President Obama signed in 2009.

Main Source: 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, June 21, 2011
Topics: 
Advertising
Health
Tobacco

Comments

1st cav replied on

Haven't we carried this anti-smoking warning label thing far enough? I mean to put a warning that reads "Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in non smokers" on a pack of cigarettes is ridiculous. Here are some warnings the public would be much better served by:
Radiation from damaged nuclear plants may cause high cancer and death rates globally.
Electing lying politicians may cause irrepairable damage to your financial well being and millions of deaths overseas.
Industrial pollution may exterminate life as we know it.
Government regulatory agencies that act on behalf of industries they are supposed to regulate pose serious health risks including death
But I guess the FDA is just giving us what we have come to expect from the worthless regulatory organizations we have these days.

Anne Landman replied on

In 2005, researchers and the University of California, San Francisco reviewed [http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/396 unpublished in vivo research on secondhand cigarette smoke performed by scientists] at the [[Philip Morris]] during the 1980s at its overseas biological lab Institut für Biologische Forschung, or [[INBIFO]]. Between 1981 and 1989 PM performed at least 115 separate studies at INBIFO on the toxicity of secondhand tobacco smoke. The existence of these studies on secondhand smoke was completely unknown until the tobacco industry's internal documents were made public on the Internet in 1998. PM's studies revealed that inhaled fresh secondhand smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram in its total particulate matter than mainstream cigarette smoke (the smoke the smoker himself inhales). The condensate ("tar") derived from secondhand smoke is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumorigenic per gram than the condensate produced by mainstream smoke when applied to skin. Philip Morris never revealed the results of these studies to the public or any government.

Secondhand smoke is more chemically potent that what the smoker himself inhales.

Anonymous james... replied on

Anne; The entire anti smoking champaign has in fact been carried far enough ! In most of the US smoking indoors,in public meeting places has already been bannend.Many municipalities are now considering banning smoking even in outdoor places where the public congregates.Many renters are now finding that they can not light up even in the homes/ apartments they rent.
Please tell Anne,exactly who is it that has not been made aware of the dangers of smoking/ second hand smoke ? Is it the same people,who have not been made aware that deisel fuel exhaust has been linked to lung cancer ? Are we talking about the same folks who still do not know that nuclear plants release harmfull radioactive pollutants on a regular basis,as a condition of normal operation.Perhaps we are talking about the folks who still do not know about, or believe in the existance of HAARP,and other types of weather modification technologies ?

Anne I appreciate your concern for my health,but quite frankly my dear,the condition our nation,and our world is in, has be a bit nervous;so I am going to smoke a ciggarete now.Hopefully I will suffer a mind nubbing stroke and will no longer be agonized over the things that are being done to myself and my fellow man,that we have absolutely no control over.

Mutternich replied on

Many renters are now finding that they can not light up even in the homes/ apartments they rent."

That sound good to me. Since smokers are now in the minority, the odds are that the next person to rent that apartment will be a non-smoker. There's no good reason why a non-smoking tenant should have to put up with residual odors left by a previous occupant who lived and smoked there for years. At the very least, I see no reason why a smoking tenant shouldn't pay premium rent for a smoking-designated apartment or a higher security deposit for de-odorizing the premises when he vacates.

Anonymous replied on

Smoking is a choice and they start teaching the kids in first grade about the dangers. The government has taken it too far. Perhaps they should put photos of blown up soldiers on Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine advertisements and applications. And photos of grossly obese people on bacon and ice cream. And damaged liver photos on all alcholic beverages. Need I go on? Where is our freedom?

Anne Landman replied on

Cigarettes are the only product that when used as intended, kill. Isn't it better to force manufacturers to convey truthful information about cigarettes, than to keep consumers in the dark? For decades, tobacco companies promoted a fake idealism around their products, used "aspirational marketing," romanticism, exploited peoples' insecurities and used other strategies to lure people into smoking. 90 percent of users start while they are children, under the age of 18. Fifty percent of smokers will die from it. The product's addictiveness is chemically enhanced. Is it not better to warn users at every turn about the very real dangers of this product? Real freedom is having all the information you need to make an informed decision. Graphic labels are part of conveying that information.

unsheepled replied on

Everything that is advertised should show true stats. Like how many girls died from guardasil shots ! How many people commit suicide / homicide while on anti-depressants( think ALL school shootings)
Cigarettes are so far down on the list these days, its almost not worth mentioning.
But how many people get sick and or die from GMO , fluoride and radioactive waste ( the way fluoride is sourced) in water, doctors & hospitals ,prescriptions medicines,and yes Fukushima is still spewing .
Media is silent on all things real !

Even controlled opposition is JUST as evil !

Vaycig Bluemaster replied on

No doubt such a packaging might deter smokers, but I am sure that tobacco companies would fight this packaging as much as they can. Knowing that this new packaging might decrease their revenues, they would surely launch their lawyers in full force to counter this change.

Anonymous replied on

CIGARETTE COMPANIES SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE A WARNING ON THEIR LABEL THAT STATES THAT THEY ARE RADIOACTIVE. IT'S THE RADIOACTIVITY THAT KILLS AT LEAST 90% OF THE TIME. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THAT THE BIGGEST KILLING AGENT IN CIGARETTES IS THE RADIOACTIVITY. ANYTHING ELSE WITH THAT MUCH RADIOACTIVITY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A WARNING LABEL IF IT WAS INGESTED - OR IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO INGEST.

AS EASY AS IT IS TO BUY YOUR WAY THROUGH THINGS IN MEXICO, THE CIGARETTES COMPANIES WERE NOT ABLE TO BUY THEIR WAY OUT OF HAVING TO PUT A WARNING LABEL ON THEIR CIGARETTES IN MEXICO. THE WARNING ON MEXICAN CIGARETTE PACKS STATES, "Substancia Radioactiva POLONIUM 210." - AND THEY DO NOT CONTAIN ANY LESS RADIOACTIVITY THAN AMERICAN CIGARETTES.

(NOTE: Organic Cigarettes, though still bad for you, do not contain the radioactivity of regular cigarettes since they do not use chemical fertilizers - which is where the radioactivity in regular cigarettes originates.)