Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Handout images of new cigarette packaging released by US Food and Drug Administration. REUTERS/Ho New

Tobacco companies seek to stop rollout of new label requirements

6/21/2011 COMMENTS (1)

NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - Graphic images of dead bodies, decaying teeth and a man exhaling smoke through a hole in his neck will cover half of the front of all cigarette packages by September 2012, United States health officials announced on Tuesday.

The development comes as tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard Tobacco Co, try to stop the rollout of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's new labeling requirements in a lawsuit pending before a federal appeals court in Cincinnati.

The companies argue that the new regulations under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act violate their First Amendment rights to communicate with adult tobacco consumers about their products.

Under the new law, "packaging is dominated by burdensome new warnings that, in an obstructive and argumentative manner, reiterate information of which consumers are already well aware," the tobacco companies argued in a brief filed with the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The companies said that the public and young people in particular already "overestimate" the dangers of smoking, without the lurid warnings.

A lower-court judge in Kentucky federal court upheld the bulk of the FDA's new regulatory framework in 2010, including the new graphic warnings. He wrote that the addition of a graphic image would not alter the substance of the written warnings that already appear on cigarette packs, including "Cigarettes are addictive" and "Smoking can kill you."

Appealing that decision, the cigarette makers argued that the new layout relegates their marketing message to the bottom half of the pack where it is "illegible, and hence, invisible," according to their brief. The companies accuse the government of forcing them to disseminate an anti-smoking message in order to stigmatize and embarrass fully informed consumers.

Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University School of Law, described the case as "silly," noting that no company has ever brought a First Amendment claim against the FDA for all of the labeling requirements they impose on drug advertising.

David Hudson, a scholar at the First Amendment Center, said that the new graphic warning labels pose serious First Amendment issues. "The government is compelling the advertisers to put forth government speech that goes against the marketing of their products (and) taking valuable advertising space away from companies," he said.

The government defendants have argued that the new warnings are more effective at conveying the dangers of smoking, based on ample scientific evidence that Congress considered in passing the law. A similar format is already required in Canada and numerous other nations.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for July 27 before the 6th Circuit.

The case is Discount Tobacco City & Lottery Inc et al v. USA et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, No. 10-5235.

For the tobacco companies: Charles English and E. Kenly Ames of English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley as lead counsel.

For the USA: Assistant U.S. Attorney William Campbell; Andrew Clark, Alisa Klein, Mark Freeman, Sarang Damle, Samantha Chaifetz, Daniel Tenny, Karen Schifter and Benjamin Kingsley of the Justice Department.

(Reporting by Terry Baynes)


Comments (1)

6/22/2011 2:51:21 AM by AudreySilk

What's "silly" is Mr. Daynard, an anti-tobacco pit bull, calling this case silly. No, I am no lawyer but I have been a party to a lawsuit on constitutional grounds that at least provided me with Legal 101 training. Where is the validity in his analogy? It's true that drug companies have labeling requirements imposed on them but not at the expense of their own packaging design. It's in ADDITION TO, not IN PLACE OF, their own content. He also fails to address the difference between a written warning (which the tobacco companies are already forced to put on their packs) and graphic pictures. I have never seen a drug company product or advertisement with a picture of someone who has overdosed, have you? Perhaps the nicotine replacement therapy Chantix should be the first candidate for such an imposition considering that it's been recognized that it can cause suicide and other forms of mental incapacition. But I digress. Chantix need only warn in print and not surrender space it otherwise chooses to use on its packet. There's no comparison, Mr. Daynard.


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters