Public Health

When the Government Does It, It's Not Fraud

|

The Federal Trade Commission has proposed (PDF) withdrawing its blessing from the tar and nicotine yields included in cigarette advertisements because these machine-generated numbers are not good indicators of what smokers actually absorb:

The current yields tend to be relatively poor predictors of tar and nicotine exposure. This is primarily due to smoker compensation, i.e., the tendency of smokers of lower-rated cigarettes to take bigger, deeper, or more frequent puffs, or to otherwise alter their smoking behavior [e.g., by subconsciously covering ventilation holes] in order to obtain the dosage of nicotine they need.

The differences between the way a machine smokes in a laboratory and the way people smoke in real life have been acknowledged since the FTC first approved the "FTC method" for measuring tar and nicotine yields in 1966. But the issue has received increasing attention during the last couple of decades. After studies confirmed that the official yields are unreliable indicators of individual exposure, anti-smoking activists and trial lawyers began to argue that the numbers are inherently fraudulent, part of a scam in which tobacco companies trick consumers into believing that "light" cigarettes are less dangerous than full-strength brands. Since the research indicates that "light" cigarette smokers only partially compensate for lower yields, they should still take in less tar than they otherwise would, but any health advantage is smaller than initially hoped. A better approach would have been to increase the nicotine-to-tar ratio, rather than reducing both yields.

In response to these concerns, the FTC now wants to "withdraw its guidance…indicating that factual statements of tar and nicotine yields based on the Cambridge Filter Method generally will not violate the FTC Act." Under its proposed rule, cigarette makers could not assert or imply FTC approval of the yields, and they probably would stop using them entirely, fearing that the commission would deem them misleading. This shift in policy is overdue, but the FTC is less than forthright about its own complicity in making tar and nicotine yields ubiquitous in cigarette ads. The commission says its "1966 guidance does not require companies to state the tar and nicotine yields of their cigarettes in their advertisements or on product labels." But as epidemiologist Ronald Davis and his colleagues noted in a 1990 American Journal of Public Health article (PDF), the story is a little more complicated:

Since 1971, all major cigarette manufacturers have voluntarily disclosed the tar and nicotine yields of cigarette brands in advertisements. The cigarette industry agreed to "voluntary" disclosure after the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had proposed a regulation that would have required such disclosure. This agreement does not apply to cigarette packages.

So if advertising tar and nicotine yields amounts to fraud, it's a fraud that was not only endorsed but in effect required by the federal government. That did not stop the federal government from suing the tobacco companies over their "light" cigarette marketing. Nor did concerns about compensatory smoker behavior stop activists and legislators from trying to authorize the Food and Drug Administration to order reductions in nicotine content, a policy that would make cigarettes more hazardous by increasing the amount of toxins and carcinogens absorbed for a given dose of nicotine.

Advertisement

NEXT: Bob Barr Claims to Have Sense of Humor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A better approach would have been to increase the nicotine-to-tar ratio, rather than reducing both yields.

    It works for the completely unregulated reefer. Think about it.

  2. Would someone please just make a high nicotine low tar cigarette already.

  3. LOL, “Do as I say, not as I do” comes to mind here. We the Sheeple are too stupid to know what is good or bad for us. LOL

    JT
    http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

  4. If you want to understand the depths of FTC hypocrisy, just look at how they treat small businesses that speak without government permission:

    http://voluntarytrade.org/joomla15/index.php/features/nativeessence

  5. Yeah, because before the government got involved the cigarette companies were so very forthright about what was in their product and what their own research implied it would do to you. It was teh market that compelled them to be so forthright.

    Oh wait….

    Just forget stuff like that Flinstones add for cigarettes that appeared here not too long ago.

    Markets can’t work very well with rampant fraud and the resulting erosion of trust. To the extent regulation provides incentives to keep folks honest they don’t just combat something that would be wrong (i.e. fraud) they promote exchange and invite prosperity that would be difficult in a “buyer beware” “freedom paradise.”

  6. The current yields tend to be relatively poor predictors of tar and nicotine exposure. This is primarily due to smoker compensation, i.e., the tendency of smokers of lower-rated cigarettes to take bigger, deeper, or more frequent puffs,

    Obviously what is needed is a law specifying for smokers how big, deep and frequent their puffs can be.

  7. “When the Government Does It, It’s Not Fraud”

    Yeah – as in it’s A-OK for the government to run a massive Ponzi scheme and call it “Social Security” but anyone else doing it would be tossed in the slammer.

  8. When the Government Does It, It’s Not Fraud

    Yes, and MY pony can fly!

  9. Hey, if big pharma bans smoking tomorrow, health care costs will not go down one iota. They are all about greed and have very little to do with health. Leave us alone!

  10. I think almost everyone now knows that the pharmaceutical industry is behind years of negative stuff and financing the smoking bans thru grants to the American Cancer Society.

    With that fact, it is also known that the smoking bans are designed to route TRILLIONS of dollars in sales for the no smoke products bringing the pharmaceutical industry giant PROFITS. With that, I must ask:

    Since we can eat broccoli, potato, tobacco, tomato, green peppers and other foods, all in the nightshade family and ALL contain nicotine, why can we eat them, but not smoke them? America had better wake up to the corporate driven scams going on in this country!

  11. Mr Nice Guy: Sullum didn’t say anything about the honesty of cigarette companies. One can observe that the FTC policy is stupid and dishonest without lauding the ethics of cigarette companies. Which is exactly what Jacob Sullum did.

  12. So the FTC is saying that publishing a government statistic is fraud? Interesting.

  13. America had better wake up to the corporate driven scams going on in this country!

    I’d be happy if we just woke up to the government-driven scams.

  14. Give this site a read.
    http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html

    Some day the truth will get out if we don’t give up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.