Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Cigarette Pack Ruling Favors Corporate Health

A federal judge's ruling that prevents the FDA from adding images that illustrate the risks of smoking to cigarette packs will contribute in some way to the deaths of 443,000 Americans a year - in the name of corporate free speech.

Cigarette Pack Ruling Favors Corporate Health

One of the nine graphic cigarette-pack labels proposed by the FDA.
One of the nine graphic cigarette-pack labels proposed by the FDA.

A ruling Monday by federal Judge Richard J. Leon is not friendly to public health. Leon sided with tobacco companies to block, at least for now, a Food and Drug Administration requirement that cigarette packages include images that illustrate the risks of smoking, along with a phone number (1-800-QUIT-NOW)  where people can get help. In effect, the ruling will contribute in some way to the deaths of 443,000 Americans annually in the name of corporate free speech.

As with many free-speech issues, the ruling has generated a flurry of public debate. My colleague Rob Field, blogging today on Check Up, weighs in on the government’s role. Here is my take, and the supporting research, on why a few of the main arguments against the warnings are bunk:

  • Claim 1: People already know that smoking is bad. To an extent, but not completely. Sure, people generally know that smoking is not good for them. But research has shown that those with lower socioeconomic status have lower levels of awareness about the harms of smoking. Low-income adults, it turns out, were also nearly three times as likely to smoke in 2010 than were those earning over $50,000 a year. Studies suggest that this might have something to do with low literacy levels (which happen to  apply to about 20% of American adults). The addition of images to written warnings has the potential to reduce this disparity.
  • Claim 2: The images are overly graphic and disturbing. I disagree, and you should take a look at the images and decide for yourself. Of the 9 FDA-approved images, 4 are not the slightest bit disturbing  to me (a woman crying, for  example, and a burly man wearing a shirt stating that he quit smoking). The remainder, which you can click through in a slide  show, are no more graphic or disturbing than what routinely appears in prime time  on network television.
  • Claim 3: The images won’t have an impact. The research, while limited, suggests otherwise. An international survey of 14 countries that require graphic warnings to be displayed on cigarette packages found that most  smokers noticed the warnings. In six of the  countries, more than 50 percent of those smokers reported wanting to quit as a result. More than 25 percent had the same reaction in all the other countries surveyed except one  (smokers in Poland weren’t particularly moved by the images).

While solid research on the effectiveness of graphic warnings on cigarette packages is still lacking, the research on the harms of smoking is air-tight. Smoking is indisputably bad for you. From a public health perspective, the fewer people who smoke the better. End of story. While the warnings’ potential impact on  smoking rates in the U.S. has not been proven, there is plenty of evidence that they are a step in the right direction.

Read more about The Public's Health.

We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

What is public health — and why does it matter?

Through prevention, education, and intervention, public health practitioners - epidemiologists, health policy experts, municipal workers, environmental health scientists - work to keep us healthy.

It’s not always easy. Michael Yudell, Jonathan Purtle, and other contributors tell you why.

Michael Yudell, PhD, MPH Associate Professor, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University
Jonathan Purtle, DrPH, MSc Assistant Professor, Drexel University School of Public Health
Janet Golden, PhD Professor of history, Rutgers University-Camden
Latest Health Videos
Also on Philly.com:
letter icon Newsletter