Cigarettes

FDA Cigarette Regulations Protect Big Tobacco, Not Public Health

Tobacco Control Act? More like Marlboro Monopoly Act.

|

Last week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exercised its authority to remove tobacco products from the market for the first time ever. "It's a big deal," Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told The New York Times. Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, called the order "historic" and says it demonstrates "the role and power of regulation." Countless news articles reported the ruling and noted its significance.

What nearly all of them missed, however, is that the manufacturer of the products in question–hand-rolled Indian cigarettes called bidis–says they have been off the American market for years. An attorney for Jash International, the company that makes the Sutra brand banned by the FDA, says they stopped selling them when a legal prohibition on flavored cigarettes took effect in 2010.

That the FDA's first significant action against a tobacco product turns out to be a mostly symbolic gesture is emblematic of the agency's record on tobacco thus far. The Tobacco Control Act gave the FDA authority over tobacco in 2009. In the time since, it has received approximately 4,000 applications for new tobacco products. With over four years in operation and currently more than 150 employees working on reviews, the FDA has managed to rule on only thirty-four of them, a slow pace it blames on deficiencies in the applications. The hold up has halted the release of new products and protected big tobacco companies from competition, an outcome that has implications for the cigar and e-cigarette industries that the FDA may target next.

The biggest change ushered in by the Tobacco Control Act is that all new cigarettes must receive explicit approval from the FDA before being allowed on the market. Products introduced prior to March 2011 have been provisionally allowed, but almost all of the 500 applications submitted since then are stuck in regulatory limbo. The Tobacco Control Act implies that these reviews should take only 90 days. The vast majority of the applications have been under review for more than a year, and only two cigarettes have ever successfully made it through the process. (A handful of smokeless tobacco products and accessories such as rolling papers have also been approved.)

To win approval, new products must prove that they are "substantially equivalent" to products already on the market, raising no new questions of health in regard to initiation, cessation, or harm to the user. Companies seeking to release a new product must submit a detailed comparison between it and a predicate product that is already on the market.

According to Bryan Haynes, a partner in the Tobacco Team at the law firm Troutman Sanders, the two approved cigarettes were relatively easy cases. Both from Lorillard, owner of the Newport brand and one of the three "Big Tobacco" companies in the United States, the approved products simply modified existing Newports by removing menthol and using fire safe paper. That they raised no new questions of health was obvious. The rejected applications from Sutra appear to have been deficient in equally obvious ways, including a failure to specify a predicate product.

Though these cases were clear on the merits, they are distinguished by their convenience too. Notably, Lorillard had filed a petition protesting the FDA's failure to act on applications within a reasonable period of time. The agency eventually denied the petition, but only after granting approval to the two Newport cigarettes. In doing so it avoided a potential legal challenge that could have ended up in court.

The contrast between the only cigarettes the agency has ever approved and the only ones it has ever ordered off the market–the former from a big tobacco company able to throw its weight around, the latter from a foreign company with very little presence in the United States–suggests that political expedience may have played a role in the FDA's decisions.

Further questions about the scientific basis of the FDA's decision making are raised by Hestia Tobacco, a start-up company whose regulatory struggles I profiled for The Atlantic in March of last year. Merely getting the Hestia brand name approved by the FDA required an entire year of inquiries. Then its substantial equivalence application was submitted in June of 2012. Nearly two years later, hardly any progress has been made on it. Indeed, as of last week the agency still hasn't determined whether Hestia has sufficiently proved that the cigarette to which it compares itself, Natural American Spirits, was commercially marketed in time to qualify as a valid predicate product. Rather than evaluating criteria relevant to health, Hestia is stuck arguing over old magazine advertisements and attempting to track down American Spirits invoices from seven years ago.

Hestia's difficulties highlight the anti-competitive effects of FDA regulation. The barriers to entry are immense and stacked in favor of existing tobacco companies that have extensive records detailing their earlier products.

These barriers are baked into the Tobacco Control Act, which resulted from an uneasy alliance between the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and tobacco giant Philip Morris. It was speculated at the time of its passage that Philip Morris supported the bill to lock in its 50 percent share of the market, with competitor RJ Reynolds dubbing the law the "Marlboro Monopoly Act." If that was the intent, the gamble has certainly paid off: Since 2011, Marlboro has had to face competition from only two new cigarettes.

None of this would perhaps be of much concern if FDA regulation only affected cigarettes. It's a hassle for cigarette companies, but ultimately not of great consequence for public health. However, the agency has indicated that it intends to expand its authority to potentially include cigars and e-cigarettes, with potentially disastrous results for both.

The market for cigars is much more dynamic than that for cigarettes, with hundreds of new products coming out each year. Aficionados seek new cigars from their favorite brands or blenders, rolled into new forms, or featuring leaf from different origins. The market is much more like that for wine than for a generic commodity. If the FDA applies the same standards to cigars as it does to cigarettes, it would bring new releases to a standstill and end the premium market as we know it. Director Zeller stated recently he recognizes that the cigar market is different, which is an encouraging sign, but it's anyone's guess what this awareness will mean in practice.

Regulation of the emerging market for e-cigarettes is even more fraught with peril. Though the anti-smoking community is divided on the products, hardly anyone doubts that they are far safer than the real thing. Arguably, e-cigarettes have done more to reduce cigarette consumption than any action taken by the FDA. Yet new restrictions could halt their evolution as an effective replacement for tobacco. And since the law requires the FDA to evaluate products based on how they affect society as a whole, the agency could restrict their sale even though they are unambiguously safer than real cigarettes for the individual user.

Additional concern about FDA regulation of e-cigarettes is raised by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. As e-cigarettes become popular as means of quitting or reducing smoking, they compete with traditional nicotine replacement therapies like gums and patches. Documents released last week reveal that GlaxoSmithKline, producer of Nicorette, urged European Union officials to impose stricter regulations on e-cigarettes. Here in the United States, Zeller arrived at his FDA post directly from working as a consultant to the same corporation.

Although the agency hails its ruling against Sutra bidi cigarettes as a landmark, the insignificance of the action underscores just how unprepared the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products is to take on additional responsibilities. In four years it has accomplished little more than a bureaucratic freezing of the cigarette market. Until it proves capable of making decisions efficiently, objectively, and fairly, it should refrain from extending its authority even further.

Author's full disclosure: I spent a year working in the Cato Institute's media department, and Cato did receive at the time less than 1 percent of its funding from tobacco companies. And the owner of Hestia Tobacco and I once exchanged rounds of beers.

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.

23 responses to “FDA Cigarette Regulations Protect Big Tobacco, Not Public Health

  1. Until it proves capable of making decisions efficiently, objectively, and fairly, it should refrain from extending its authority even further.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Its authority should never, ever be extended further, regardless of how good they get at making decisions.

    1. The better they are at making decisions, the less you want them to extend authority. Nothing worse than a ruthlessly efficient dictatorship.

  2. Until it proves capable of making decisions efficiently, objectively, and fairly, it should refrain from extending its authority even further.

    How about dropping everything starting with “Until” and ending with “fairly”?

  3. Nonononononono, no, no

    No.

    There’s no *penalty* for being slow in making decisions – you can even turn it into a plus by claiming that it shows the level of attention that this complicated issue requires.

    Instead, you grab *every* bit of authority you can get your greedy little hands on. The businesses will learn how to adapt to your incompetent regulating once you have them under your heel.

  4. What happens when Phillip Morris starts rolling joints and marketing them?

    1. It’s not a tobacco product, this not subject to that act.

      1. I know, but it’s absurd. The Government’s moving one from illegal to legal, the other from legal to illegal.

        1. Why do you hate the children, Tim? Why do you want Big Tobacco to be able to market to kids and give them all cancer? You disgust me.

    2. What happens when Phillip Morris starts rolling joints and marketing them?

      We laugh our asses off at the granola eating pot enthusiasts railing against Big Marijuana?

  5. The Tobacco Control Act implies that these reviews should take only 90 days

    The law should be that if a regulatory agency can’t process a request within the time frame expressed, the request is automatically approved. All denials must have ample documentation and justification, and are challengable in court.

    I hate pocket vetoes.

    1. This is the same bullshit that got Illinois into so much hot water with their slow-rolling gun permit applications. Same is happening in California as well. Don’t these assclowns know that there is precedent now that will render them almost powerless?*

      *Well, it would if the SC had a fucking spine.

      1. Why would they care? It’s not like the money for the lawyers is coming out of their pockets.

      2. there is precedent now that will render them almost powerless?*

        Never give up… NEVER SURRENDER!

    2. The law should be that if a regulatory agency can’t process a request within the time frame expressed, the request is automatically approved.

      THAT WHICH IS NOT EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IS PROHIBITED!

      IF THERE IS NO REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OR LAW ALLOWING IT, IT IS ILLEGAL.

      1. Pretty much this.

  6. and says it demonstrates “the role and power of regulation.”

    I’m gonna go take a shower now.

  7. Powerful industry participant supports legislation and regulation making it effectively impossible for competitors to emerge? Shocking.

  8. Your full disclosure statement exposed more that the thousands of opinions that come from people in tobacco control that constantly receive funding from the Pharma industry. From the FDA to the Tobacco researchers and to the ?non-profit?”health” associations, their efforts are little more than protectionism of the status quo. Health is of little consequence when money is to be made.

  9. “The biggest change ushered in by the Tobacco Control Act is that all new cigarettes must receive explicit approval from the FDA before being allowed on the market.”

    Can we start putting “FDA Approved” stickers on ciggarette packages then? I would love to see that.

    1. This I would love to see too!

  10. Anyone out there grow your own? I smoke very little, but love a nicely rolled Golden Virginia on occasion, which is very hard to get now. I also miss the extra light shag that Drum makes in Holland. Also unavailable in this country in seems.

  11. I still don’t get the logic. How is banning something going to make it socially unacceptable? Speeding is socially acceptable and still illegal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.