From: SMOKEFREE@compuserve.com
Date: Mon, 09/13/04
SPH prof clashes with public health orgs
Smoke screen: new legislation is sweetheart deal for big tobacco
By Danielle Masterson
The B.U. Bridge
Vol. VIII, No. 2
September 10, 2004
The Food and Drug Administration will be able to strictly regulate
tobacco products if legislation now before Congress is passed, say more
than 50 public health organizations. But Michael Siegel, an associate
professor in the School of Public Health, says the bill will result in
more tobacco-related deaths.
Included in the amendment to a largely unrelated corporate tax bill, the
regulations will "create a public perception that now that the FDA is
regulating tobacco, cigarettes are a safer product," says Siegel. "If
the public's perception of the risks of smoking goes down, smoking will
go up."
The amendment contains a $12 billion tobacco buyout designed to help
struggling tobacco farmers switch to other crops as demand for tobacco
in the United States declines. In exchange, antismoking legislators
included in the amendment new FDA oversight of the industry. The
amendment is sponsored by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Mike
DeWine (R-Ohio) and was passed by the Senate July 15. But because the
House passed only the tobacco buyout and not the regulation portion of
the amendment, it currently is being discussed in a conference
committee.
Siegel, a physician who has researched tobacco control extensively for
the past 19 years, released the first detailed report analyzing the bill
last month.
According to the study, published on the SMOKEFREE Network's Web site,
the bill will create a "public perception" that "the health risk posed
by ordinary tobacco products will decline as the public perceives the
fact of FDA regulation as automatically meaning the product must be
reasonably safe, or at least safer."
Siegel also argues in the report that the bill will result in more
tobacco-related deaths because the legislation hamstrings companies from
researching, developing, introducing, or marketing less hazardous
tobacco products by implementing stringent regulations.
Public health organizations say the legislation is important because it
will regulate certain aspects of existing products, such as restricted
marketing, disclosure of ingredients, and warning labels. The FDA does
not currently regulate tobacco.
Some public health groups also champion the bill's tobacco buyout
provision. "It gives farmers the chance to use the money to transition
to other crops or other ways of earning income," says Vince Willmore,
director of communications for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
The Senate amendment requires that any new cigarette brand obtain FDA
approval, while existing brands are grandfathered into the new
regulatory system. But Siegel says the regulations will discourage the
creation of less hazardous tobacco products.
"Existing brands can continue to be marketed and continue killing
people," he says. "But new brands must be approved by the FDA." Any new
cigarette brand that is going to be marketed as a "reduced risk" product
must prove to the FDA that it lowers the risk of smoking - a feat close
to impossible, he says. "It has to be done with long-term scientific
studies. You can't just find out if a new product is going to reduce
cancer rates in a year or two."
He says the legislation is flawed because "the bill completely ties the
hands of the FDA in terms of complying with the very legislation that
sets requirements for its action. The loopholes in the legislation are
huge, and not only benefit the tobacco industry, but institutionalize
tobacco and addictions to tobacco products in our society."
According to Siegel, major public health organizations made the buyout
into a public health issue by forming a partnership with tobacco
farmers. He says the partnership has put such groups as the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart
Association, and the American Lung Association "shoulder to shoulder"
with Marlboro manufacturer Philip Morris.
"The public health organizations used the tobacco farmers as a pawn, I
believe, in their political game," says Siegel. "They formed a coalition
with the farmers and said, 'You want a buyout; we want legislation;
let's form a coalition.'
"I find it really appalling that public health groups would get together
with the nation's leading cigarette manufacturer and essentially work
together to promote legislation that is going to preserve Philip Morris'
profits at the expense of the public's health," he adds.
Siegel says he started his analysis thinking there could be a
possibility "that Philip Morris had turned over a new leaf and was, for
the first time in history, supporting a bill that would protect the
public health at the expense of its own profit." But his findings show
the opposite, he says: "This legislation would essentially protect the
market share of Philip Morris, protect its cigarette brands, and
eliminate any competition from other companies."
Although he suggests specific changes to the bill, Siegel says federal
legislation of tobacco products is not the way to go. State initiatives
such as smoke-free restaurants, bars, and workplaces, as well as tobacco
cessation programs, have been successful in Massachusetts and could be
used to continue the effort to control and stop tobacco use.
"Public health groups should be focusing their attention where we do
have power - at the state and local levels," Siegel says, "not in this
futile effort to go through Congress."
- - -
Dr. Siegel's detailed analysis of the FDA tobacco legislation is
available at: www.notobaccobailout.org
.
|
