FDA Mandates Larger Warning Labels

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • justintempler
    Member
    • Nov 2008
    • 3090

    FDA Mandates Larger Warning Labels

    This explains the warnings labels people have commented about on the new Jakobssons Wintergreen



    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...sq=snus&st=cse




    May 3, 2010, 1:16 pm
    New Bold Warnings on Tobacco Ads

    By DUFF WILSON

    Magazine readers no longer have to squint to see the health warning on ads for smokeless tobacco products.

    Big, bold health warnings, which stem from last year’s landmark tobacco law, have begun showing up in magazines this month. The new rules requiring more prominent health warnings on advertising for smokeless tobacco products officially go into effect June 22 and kick in a year later for cigarette ads.

    Previously, the warning on smokeless tobacco ads appeared in a small circle in the corner of the ad. Now the bold warning must fill 20 percent of the advertising space.

    “A huge improvement,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington interest group. “You can’t miss the new warnings, whereas the old warnings disappeared into the ad and were virtually invisible.”

    Research has shown smokeless tobacco products, used by nearly 3 percent of Americans, appeal particularly to young men, especially those in rural areas and the southeast. Smokeless tobacco causes nicotine addiction and cancers of the lip, tongue, cheek, gum and mouth. Research has also shown that larger warning statements discourage users. The new warnings mark the first such change since 1986.

    The new law requires a rotating set of larger warnings, including, “Warning: This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes,” “”Warning: This product can cause mouth cancer,” and “Warning: This product can cause gum disease and tooth loss.” Earlier ads required the same statements but in smaller type. The new law also adds a fourth warning to the rotation: “Warning: Smokeless tobacco is addictive.”

    Not everyone thinks the larger warnings will make much difference, because the warning is in white print on a black background.

    “It’s the type of thing that consumers are still most likely to ignore in an ad,” said Margaret A. Morrison, professor at the University of Tennessee who has published research on tobacco advertising in youth-oriented magazines. “If you look at the totality of the ad, the blue, the soothing stuff, is still likely to attract your eye. This one, even though it’s bigger, it’s not necessarily better.”

    Gregory N. Connolly, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, said that warnings are still too weak, even at the larger size. The bigger concern is the color ad above the warning, promoting the smokeless product as a way to keep smoking, Dr. Connolly said. The ad urges consumers to “Boldly go everywhere,” a reference to using the tobacco product at places and times where smoking is prohibited.

    Dr. Connolly said the tobacco industry has been promoting smokeless products as a way to maintain a smoking habit, rather than quitting. “The industry has an excellent opportunity to show the American public that they have changed,” he said. “I hope they don’t miss this opportunity and think it’s business as usual.”

    David Howard, a spokesman for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, said the company “felt it was appropriate” to put the new warnings in ads now for magazines with June cover dates. The Reynolds advertising will appear in Car & Driver, Field and Stream and Outdoor Life magazines. It promotes a new type of smokeless product called Camel Snus — available in “Frost” or “Mellow” flavors.

    Reynolds is also test marketing a tobacco pellet called Camel Orbs which has drawn fire for its candy-like appearance and flavors.

    Smokeless tobacco products are a growing part of industry plans in response to declining cigarette sales, but the products are quickly moving to the center of the debate over how to regulate tobacco. Smokeless advocates say they should be promoted as safer than cigarettes, while some health advocates say that would encourage new users and deflect would-be quitters.

    Meanwhile, cigarette packages and advertising are required to have their own bigger, stronger warnings as of June 22, 2011, the second anniversary of the law. Those warnings would have to cover the top half of the front and rear of each package and include “color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking.” The graphics would be modeled on ads in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, showing cancers, lung disease and other damaging effects.

    While the United States was the first country to require warnings on cigarettes, in 1964, such warnings are now among the smallest worldwide. Australia is even considering a rule to ban brand colors on cigarette packs altogether and cover almost the entire pack with a picture of disease.

    Many tobacco companies filed a free-speech lawsuit last August saying “shocking color graphics” would force them “to stigmatize their own products through their own packaging” and leave no room in display cases to show their desired branding. Consumers, the companies say, already know the harms of tobacco use.
  • tom502
    Member
    • Feb 2009
    • 8985

    #2
    I think times where better when people just smoked and it didn't matter.

    Comment

    • texasmade
      Member
      • Jan 2009
      • 4159

      #3
      I think the FDA is ran by ****tards. and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kid...SO WHAT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO USE TOBACCO WE ALL TAKE A HEALTH CLASS IN GRADE SCHOOL THAT SAYS ITS BAD. AFTER THAT IT'S OUR DECISION. STOP F*CKING WITH MY SHIT AND WORRY ABOUT F*CKING GRADUATING!

      Comment

      • sgreger1
        Member
        • Mar 2009
        • 9451

        #4
        I don't understand, how can they mandate that they put a warning that says "THIS WILL GIVE YOU GUM CANCER" on a product which does no such thing?

        Can they force coke to put a giant warning saying "THIS WILL CAUSE ANAL CANCER IF YOU DRINK IT". I bet that would never fly. So on what basis are they making them do this? Can they regulate something they haven't studied the effects of? Does anything tobacco related automatically get this warning?

        Comment

        • danielan
          Member
          • Apr 2010
          • 1514

          #5
          This makes perfect sense. The problem with public health and tobacco today is that apparently people can't read the normal sized letters. ?

          I enjoy the requirements they seek to prohibit the use of colors or words to describe the products. i.e. they can't be Camel Lights and they can't be green since that is soothing and they can't be yellow since that is happy.

          At some point the 1st amendment has to kick in. How can you sell a variety of products when you can't describe them to allow the customer to differentiate them? That can't all be in black boxes that say "cigarette".

          We should lobby for pictures of naked fat people on big macs. And pictures of the rotted and toothless on candy.

          Comment

          • danielan
            Member
            • Apr 2010
            • 1514

            #6
            Originally posted by sgreger1 View Post
            I don't understand, how can they mandate that they put a warning that says "THIS WILL GIVE YOU GUM CANCER" on a product which does no such thing?
            Yea, like hats, coasters and fridge mates.

            We're becoming the United States of Amusing.

            Comment

            • tom502
              Member
              • Feb 2009
              • 8985

              #7
              When will candy cars have a 2/3rds sized warning label saying: "Causes Diabetes" on it?

              Comment

              • sgreger1
                Member
                • Mar 2009
                • 9451

                #8
                Originally posted by danielan View Post
                That can't all be in black boxes that say "cigarette".

                We just want to keep you healthy....


                Comment

                • tom502
                  Member
                  • Feb 2009
                  • 8985

                  #9
                  Maybe the warning message could actually be printed on each cigarette?

                  Comment

                  • truthwolf1
                    Member
                    • Oct 2008
                    • 2696

                    #10
                    Soylent Green! Great movie!
                    Pretty soon everyone will be allowed one digital transaction for a bowl of rice a day.

                    As a graphic designer I am glad I am not working in the tobacco field, otherwise I would be out of a job or scanning cancer photographs for products.

                    Comment

                    • sgreger1
                      Member
                      • Mar 2009
                      • 9451

                      #11
                      Originally posted by tom502 View Post
                      Maybe the warning message could actually be printed on each cigarette?
                      Or maybe they should mandate that they add an adulterant to each cigarette, one that instantly gives you cancer. You know, in an effort to keep you healthy and no longer smoke of course.

                      Pretty soon everyone will be allowed one digital transaction for a bowl of rice a day.
                      And of course we must also be rationed to 1 square of toilet paper a day.

                      Comment

                      • truthwolf1
                        Member
                        • Oct 2008
                        • 2696

                        #12
                        1 square of toilet paper and one shower per week per person.
                        Your water meter will be regulated and also the heat and electricity. First offense is a fine, Second offense a mandatory weekend in the workhouse.

                        Comment

                        • f. bandersnatch
                          Member
                          • Mar 2010
                          • 725

                          #13
                          They should start putting warning labels on applications for employment at the FDA that say "this job is boring and will turn you into a complete waste of life". Or they could just require that applicants read Kafka in the waiting room at the interview office. Either way, I feel more sympathy towards the worthless putzes that work for them than towards people that use tobacco.

                          Comment

                          • danielan
                            Member
                            • Apr 2010
                            • 1514

                            #14
                            Originally posted by sgreger1 View Post
                            Or maybe they should mandate that they add an adulterant to each cigarette, one that instantly gives you cancer.
                            Dear god - don't say this in a public forum - they might just do that.

                            Do you know why there is acetaminophen "compounded" with Oxycontin? Because it "tends to reduce the opportunity for abuse" via "hepatic necrosis".

                            In other words, to get it approved, by the FDA, they mixed it in a way that if you abuse it, you will kill your liver.

                            Comment

                            • LaZeR
                              Member
                              • Oct 2009
                              • 3994

                              #15
                              This is awesome i hope they start printing the tobacco warnings on roadside street signs and start off the 6' & 11' oclock news with a 5 minute segment on the dangers of smokelessess tobaccos, mainly snus, and force all newspapers to run a extra bold banner at the top of each page!!!

                              Edit: I HAD THIS SUCKER IN ALL CAPS AND IT EDITTED ITSELF.. wtf?

                              Comment

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X