In a verdict released today, a Washington judge momentarily blocked new FDA-mandated cigarette caution product labels. Until a final ruling is issued, tobacco companies won't have to put these product labels on their product. A final ruling could take months or years.
Caution from FDA
On Sept 22, 2012, the FDA-mandated caution labels were going to be required on all packs of cigarettes. One of many visual pictures would have had to be incorporated on over 50 percent of cigarette packages and at least 20 percent of print ads with the mandate. There were many things involved in the photographs. This integrated mouth cancer, a mother expelling smoke into a baby’s face, and diseased lungs. The idea was to decrease the smoking rates. This would be done with visual pictures showing what smoking can do.
Against what the companies want
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Commonwealth Brands Inc. Liggett Group and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. said the FDA’s requirements were compelling speech in the lawsuit filed in court. Occasionally individuals have to say things they don’t agree with. When it is needed, it is compelled speech. Individuals are protected by the First Amendment from compelled speech. Cigarette packs already have large, visual warnings on them like the FDA wants in 43 nations. Warnings in Canada are common. They're also required.
What the judge thinks
An injunction against the requirement is there due to what the judge things. The judge believes that there aren't “purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures.” The judge really does not believe the graphics are factual. That makes them unnecessary.
“It is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never to start smoking - an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information,” wrote the judge in his opinion.
Caution from FDA
On Sept 22, 2012, the FDA-mandated caution labels were going to be required on all packs of cigarettes. One of many visual pictures would have had to be incorporated on over 50 percent of cigarette packages and at least 20 percent of print ads with the mandate. There were many things involved in the photographs. This integrated mouth cancer, a mother expelling smoke into a baby’s face, and diseased lungs. The idea was to decrease the smoking rates. This would be done with visual pictures showing what smoking can do.
Against what the companies want
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Commonwealth Brands Inc. Liggett Group and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. said the FDA’s requirements were compelling speech in the lawsuit filed in court. Occasionally individuals have to say things they don’t agree with. When it is needed, it is compelled speech. Individuals are protected by the First Amendment from compelled speech. Cigarette packs already have large, visual warnings on them like the FDA wants in 43 nations. Warnings in Canada are common. They're also required.
What the judge thinks
An injunction against the requirement is there due to what the judge things. The judge believes that there aren't “purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures.” The judge really does not believe the graphics are factual. That makes them unnecessary.
“It is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never to start smoking - an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information,” wrote the judge in his opinion.
