Analysis of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Abstract

The United States has experienced an electrifying shift of events against the tobacco companies since 2009. Cigarette-related ailments are among the most outstanding health problems facing the United States and the world at large. However, this article will analyze the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act passed by the United States Congress in 2009. The focus will be to elaborate on the evidence on the regulation of tobacco products. The paper will commence with an evaluation of the motivations for controlling tobacco use, both at the individual and federal levels. The body will discuss the relevant literature regarding benefits or losses induced by the policies. The paper will conclude by revisiting the main ideas presented in the essay.

Introduction

Tobacco consumption instills massive damage on the global population. This damage is not necessarily mortality oriented but also on expenditures incurred in tobacco-related conditions. The toll on tobacco’s lethal effects extends from the active smoker to the passive smoker. In a bid to minimize the costly effects of tobacco use, this paper seeks to analyze how the current legislation regarding tobacco use can serve as the solution to this problem. This paper seeks to emphasize that the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate tobacco should exercise the right to prevent harmful consumption of tobacco through legislation. This situation is provoked by the high rate of tobacco-related fatalities and the high health care costs.

Evidence from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that more than 60 percent of the American population is affected by cigarette smoking directly or indirectly (DiFranza, 2011). Cigarette-related conditions are feared to be among the leading causes of death in the world. Lack of legislation and regulation to cigarette smoking has contributed to cigarette-related health complications for many years. Consequently, following overwhelming research revealing cigarette’s harmful impacts, tobacco control acts have emerged.

Background information

Within the last two decades, the Food and Drug Administration authority (FDA) was not involved in the regulation of tobacco goods. The State and Congress were mandated with the regulation of tobacco products. Principal regulations by most States focused on matters of selling tobacco to underage people and licensing of distributors (Zeller, 2012). Even though a stern warning was issued to discourage tobacco use through advertising, less effort targeted the health factors of cigarette smoking. In a bid to fill this void, in 1996 the FDA formulated a rule that sought to regulate tobacco products and passed a law to restrict tobacco use by minors. Since the FDA had not been offered the green light to tobacco products regulation, tobacco firms went to court to contests this rule. The US Congress was compelled to give authority to the FDA to control tobacco products. This move marked the genesis of tobacco regulation by the FDA through the implementation of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTC Act) signed into law by President Obama in 2009 (DiFranza, 2011). Even though the Obama administration passed the bill, it was met with considerable opposition, particularly from a section of Congress representing the tobacco-producing regions such as North Carolina.

Purpose of the FTC Act

Several opinion polls had shown consistency in public support for government intervention in health care. Since tobacco advertising encourages the use of tobacco products, and the previous efforts to combat advertising have disappointed, legal restriction on the marketing of these products is inevitable. These laws meant much to save a lot of American lives and health care expenditures related to tobacco use. This policy provided various restrictions that could prove essential within a few years of implementation. For instance, tobacco companies were required to give a list showing all ingredients used in the manufacturing of all tobacco products getting into the market. The law imposed market restrictions to discourage the rise of demand for tobacco products.

The law ensures that the FDA has the power to tackle issues of interest to the public such as the use of tobacco by minors. The law serves to ensure that the public is adequately enlightened about tobacco effects. These policies are also meant to prevent children from tobacco use. Studies show that minors are more lured by tobacco advertising as opposed to adults. Juveniles exposed to unrestricted advertising of tobacco products gain the interest to use the products. Since tobacco is an avoidable cause of death, comprehensive restrictions on advertisement pose a positive impact on the prevalence of tobacco use. The fact that the only safe alternative to tobacco use is ceasing, the law is a right move against smoking.

Reactions towards the FTC Act

Following the passage of the FSPTC Act key players and stakeholders both in the tobacco industry and health, sector came out with differing viewpoints. Notably, about five tobacco firms led by the Lorillard Tobacco Company came out publicly to file a petition in a federal court in response to the FDA legislation. The tobacco firms claimed that the huge size of warnings imposed by the FDA on cigarette packaging was humiliating and breached their First Amendment provisions to interact with informed, mature users. On January 4, 2010, Judge Joseph McKinley offered his stand on the case after a keen analysis of the issues raised by the plaintiffs and the defendants. The judge ruled in favor of the defendants arguing that highly visible warnings on a cigarette package are meaningful since it communicates the lethal health effects of tobacco use (Jarman, 2014).

On the other hand, the health sector enormously supported the FDA legislation since it had first-hand experience with tobacco health-related issues. The FDA regulations provided the public health advocates with a new tool to wage a more aggressive and wide war against tobacco use. Unexpected support came from Philip Morris, the pioneer of Marlboro brand cigarettes. Phillip Morris agreed to collaborate with the FDA arguing that the regulations were of health benefits to the public (Jarman, 2014). Philip had much to gain from these regulations because restricting tobacco advertisement meant that Philip Morris’ current market share was safe. This worked because other firms were in a disadvantaged position to lure users to shift to their products. Even though this support had mutual benefits, Philip Morris made a substantial impact on the reduction of tobacco use.

The affected population

The FDA legislations posted both positive and adverse effects to different people. The entire public is partly affected by the implications of tobacco use. This claim is justified by the high costs that tobacco users inflict on others and the government. Reduced rate of tobacco use narrowed the possibility for deteriorating health outcomes and healthcare expenditures. Therefore, the laws made a positive impact on the welfare of most Americans. Contrary, the tobacco industry experienced adverse effects due to increased taxes and a decline in the number of tobacco users.

The benefits of the policy

Many studies have delved deeper into medical research to prove a myriad of benefits to support legislation against tobacco use. For instance, Leischow, Zeller, and Backinger (2011) suggest that labeling tobacco products package has a positive impact on the prevalence of tobacco use. Currently, smoking in the US declined since the establishment of the FTC Act in 2009. This reduction has translated to improved quality of health and reduction of chronic diseases associated with tobacco use. Since 2009, medical reports have shown a massive decline in infant health complications arising from susceptibility to maternal smoking at the time of pregnancy (Leischow et al., 2011). The health sector has been able to exclude some of the health care services that were meant to cater to the high number of patients with tobacco-related diseases.

Strengths and weaknesses of the policies

The power of the FDA to guide the production and distribution of tobacco goods is essential since it facilitates the need to make changes to products to make them less lethal. Notably, the law controls the actions of the FDA by imposing defined limits of authority. The agency has no power to ban general tobacco goods or demand exclusion of nicotine from tobacco goods. Warning labels on cigarette packaging hurt the smokers. According to Zeller (2012), recurring exposure to warning messages creates fear and eventually the intention to avoid tobacco use. Banning tobacco brands’ sponsorship of social events minimizes the emotive attachment towards tobacco products. Withdrawal of vending machines and restriction of tobacco accessibility to minors reduce the prevalence of smoking.

On the other hand, the FDA offers a disputable claim for the effectiveness of warning information. These graphic warnings failed to address the intentions to stop tobacco use in the short run. Even though the warnings have the potential to trigger negative responses, these effects did not manifest the potential to have a long-lasting impact. Tobacco consumers get used to these warnings with time thus if they lack short-term effect they may not achieve the intended purpose (Zeller, 2012).

The scope of the issue

The FTC Act is national legislation passed to address the issue of tobacco use across the US. The swift turn of events against the tobacco industry in the US demanded legislation to cover the entire region since the problem of smoking was not unique to an individual state (Zeller, 2012). However, the law prevents the State and local governments from adjusting or issuing new requirements on tobacco product packaging or the warning graphics. Nonetheless, the law allows the State and local governments to issue warning information provided it does not interfere with the tobacco packaging or labeling. The law also has positive implications for the international community because it restricts illicit trade in tobacco goods (Jarman, 2014). To avoid the illicit trade, the law demands that the cigarette products bear words that indicate the product should all be sold within the United States.

Conclusion

Within the few years since the passing of the FTC Act, the FDA has proved to be a significant factor and relief to tobacco-related health complications and death. Local and state governments have played an important role in facilitating healthy living free of tobacco substances. Despite the usual assumption that the five years of policy enforcement have tackled this menace, the truth is that tobacco use remains to be among the chief cause of death in the US. The best chance that the FDA has to combat tobacco use is to enforce the FTC Act. If the FDA can succeed in decreasing the chances of youth in tobacco use can be a big boost since most smokers start by the age of eighteen.

References

DiFranza, J. (2011). Research Opportunities Concerning Youth and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Journal of Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 14(1), 54-57.

Jarman, H. (2014). The politics of trade and tobacco control. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

Leischow, S., Zeller, M., & Backinger, C. (2011). Research Priorities and Infrastructure Needs of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act: Science to Inform FDA Policy. Journal of Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 14(1), 1-6.

Zeller, M. (2012). Three years later: an assessment of the implementation of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Journal of Tobacco Control, 21(5), 453-454.

Click Here To Order Now!