Supreme Court Ruled FDA can't regulate tobacco products

[sgreger1]

Just found this, not sure if it's been discussed before.

In FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000), a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the Clinton Administration to regulate tobacco products.

The Court held that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Act)[1], when viewed as a whole, implicitly excluded tobacco products from the FDA's jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that if the FDA had power to regulate tobacco products, then the Act would require it to remove tobacco entirely from the market. This would be contrary to the congressional intent as illustrated by tobacco-specific legislation.

I'm not sure what this means, it sounds like the SCOTUS ruled that the FDA can't regulate tobacco products, but then alludes to the fact that congress can make tobacco-specific legislation to serve that purpose. However, can the congress write tobacco-specific legislation that grants authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco, even after the supreme court ruled that it is outside of the FDA's jurisdiction?


Dog, get in here!

[Choice]

I wonder, if the American tobacco companies adopted the approach the Swedish ones have when it comes to the handling of the tobacco to render it far less harmful to the consumer... could they be respected again? Sustainable even?

[WickedKitchen]

Seems like the FDA would have to state that there's more bad than good in the products therefore would be against the public's best interest to make available. That point alone is arguable as there are some very legitimate medical uses for nicotine not to mention social, stress, anxiety, etc.

Doesn't the ATF regulate tobacco?

Tobacco is most likely considered a drug but I don't know how that has anything to do with it.

[justintempler]

That's from back in 2000, back then the FDA had not yet been given the authority to regulate tobacco.
Things are different now.

[LaZeR]

That's from back in 2000, back then the FDA had not yet been given the authority to regulate tobacco.
Things are different now.

Yepper. Change is here!

[sgreger1]

That's from back in 2000, back then the FDA had not yet been given the authority to regulate tobacco.
Things are different now.

That's what I figured. I couldn't find anything newer but I don't know where to go to find all the newest supreme court rulings in a certain catagory (like tobacco). I wonder what changed their mind, and on what basis they were (apparently) allowed at a later debate to regulate it in this fashion?


I can see why the FDA would regulate a potential health risk, but I dont' see how the system works in a way that restricts snus, while at the same time giving the green light to any type of ciagrette. That would be almost as dumb as making alcohol legal and then labeling certain plants a dru.... oh wait.

[Bigblue1]

I see what you did there......

[Langdell]

That's what I figured. I couldn't find anything newer but I don't know where to go to find all the newest supreme court rulings in a certain catagory (like tobacco). I wonder what changed their mind, and on what basis they were (apparently) allowed at a later debate to regulate it in this fashion?

The 2000 ruling was under the old law (i.e., statute, passed by Congress), which did not put tobacco regulation under the FDA. The Tobacco Control Act, passed by Congress in 2009, is what now puts it under the FDA.