Philip Morris, Hero of the Anti-Smoking Movement

Jacob Sullum | June 22, 2009

Today President Obama plans to sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products. In Friday's New York Times, business columnist Joe Nocera blows kisses at former FDA chief David Kessler, anti-smoking activist Matthew Myers, and former Philip Morris executive Steven Parrish for their roles in producing the law. Calling it "a demonstrably good thing," Nocera tells this trio of "unlikely partners" to "take a bow, fellas."

Although Nocera acknowledges "critics" who say FDA regulation will serve mainly to protect Philip Morris' market share, he assures readers they are a "small minority." Yet he does not bother to address their arguments, and his case for the law supported by Kessler, Myers, and Parrish is based almost entirely on the unexamined assumption that more regulation is always better.

Nocera says, for instance, that one "demonstrably good" aspect of the law is that "the F.D.A. will be able to mandate a reduction in nicotine levels." Why is that good? Nocera doesn't say, but one predictable result of reducing nicotine levels is that smokers will be exposed to higher level of toxins and carcinogens to get the dose of nicotine to which they are accustomed. Reducing nicotine levels therefore makes cigarettes more, not less, dangerous.

Nocera also is pleased that "new products that claim to reduce the harm from cigarettes will have to go through a rigorous scientific review process." He does not mention that manufacturers have to demonstrate that "modified risk" products will "benefit the health of the population as a whole," which means the FDA can keep indisputably safer products off the market based on fears about how they will influence nonsmokers and smokers who otherwise might have given up tobacco completely.

Nocera correctly notes that "smokeless tobacco is far less harmful than cigarettes," but he overlooks the fact that the new law prohibits manufacturers from telling consumers that without FDA approval, which is based on the same "health of the population as a whole" standard. In other words, the FDA can continue to censor potentially lifesaving information about smokeless tobacco if it worries that telling the truth will attract new tobacco users or encourage smokers to switch rather than quit. Yet Nocera implies that the law will promote awareness of smokeless tobacco's safety advantage. "Because the tobacco industry has zero credibility," he writes, "only the F.D.A. would have the moral authority to make health claims, based on real science, about smokeless products versus cigarettes." It is telling that Nocera says "moral authority" instead of "credibility," since resistance to smokeless tobacco as a harm-reducing alternative to cigarettes is based on moralism rather than science. It nevertheless may prevail at the FDA, as it has in the public health community generally.

Describing Myers' attitude toward collaborating with the largest U.S. tobacco company on a bill that will help protect it from competition, Nocera says, "All that mattered was the result: cigarettes would be regulated." The idea that regulation is an end in itself, regardless of its actual consequences, explains a lot about how Washington works.

On his tobacco policy blog, Michael Siegel notes that Kessler himself is skeptical of the idea that FDA regulation will lead to safer cigarettes, telling NPR, "I'm not sure that scientifically we're smart enough to know how to do that or that's possible when you're burning a tobacco leaf or you're inhaling all these chemicals that are very reinforcing." Recent coverage of the tobacco regulation bill here and here.

Comments

respek|6.22.09 @ 11:24AM|#

Moral authority is so much more powerful than freedom. I think it's more popular too!

Xeones|6.22.09 @ 11:25AM|#

Shut the fuck up, Joe Nocera.

Kyle Jordan|6.22.09 @ 11:41AM|#

How can people be this clueless? I really can't fathom it.

Citizen Nothing|6.22.09 @ 12:07PM|#

And PM (5%) and MO (8%) keep churning out dividends for me. KA-CHING!

Punk|6.22.09 @ 12:37PM|#

Now that cigarettes will be regulated to make them more safe, I can finally take up smoking. I was waiting for someone to fix this problem.

The Angry Optimist|6.22.09 @ 2:35PM|#

Nocera doesn't say, but one predictable result of reducing nicotine levels is that smokers will be exposed to higher level of toxins and carcinogens to get the dose of nicotine to which they are accustomed. Reducing nicotine levels therefore makes cigarettes more, not less, dangerous.

Err, I don't like this argument at all. Almost all smoking-cessation products have "step-down" levels of nicotine as part of the program. Most people trying to break the caffeine habit start with half-decaf.

I know that there are studies about how people who try to cut down by having lights or ultra-lights end up smoking more and dragging harder, something I can anecdotally confirm, but at the same time, decreased nicotine as a step-down program can really work.

Rhywun|6.22.09 @ 4:24PM|#

decreased nicotine as a step-down program can really work

So it's kind of like a mandatory step-down program? What could possibly go wrong.

|6.22.09 @ 4:44PM|#

As an former dipper for 27 years, I can tell you, there is no advantage to smokeless tobacco. Just another delivery system and just as full of carcinogens. It's even harder to quit than smoking.

This new law is a crock.

jtuf|6.23.09 @ 12:39AM|#

Nocera also is pleased that "new products that claim to reduce the harm from cigarettes will have to go through a rigorous scientific review process." He does not mention that manufacturers have to demonstrate that "modified risk" products will "benefit the health of the population as a whole," which means the FDA can keep indisputably safer products off the market based on fears about how they will influence nonsmokers and smokers who otherwise might have given up tobacco completely.

By that logic, we should ban condoms to encourage more people to give up recreational sex. Both recreational sex and smoking tobacco involve assuming increased disease risk for the sake of pleasure. The lesson? Make sure all your indulgences are the popular ones.

smokelesscigarettes|6.24.09 @ 6:20AM|#

This post is really informative. If you can't leave your smoking habit immediately you can switch to the smokeless electronic cigarette or e-cigs with which you can really save yourself and your surroundings from the risks that are associated with smoking any traditional cigarette.