Tobacco Regulation Bill Unlikely to Pass This Year
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON – Every day, tobacco-related illnesses kill 28 Massachusetts residents; every year, 24,000 Massachusetts children become daily smokers, according to the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.
Now, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) and other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee are spearheading a bill that would place cigarettes and other tobacco products under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration. Their proposal would allow the FDA to regulate the marketing of tobacco products to minors, strengthen health warnings on the dangerous effects of smoking and limit hazardous materials in cigarettes.
But prospects for enactment this year have dimmed in the wake of a dispute over just how much authority the FDA should acquire.
To ensure its passage, lawmakers had planned to link the bill with one that would provide financial relief to tobacco farmers by ending the government’s 70-year-old tobacco subsidy. That measure, which is supported by senators from tobacco-growing states, would allow farmers to increase their tobacco production and compete on more even footing with foreign growers.
An unlikely coalition of interest groups-including anti-smoking advocates, tobacco growers and cigarette giant Philip Morris-have voiced support for tobacco regulation. But controversy over the specific language of the bill has stalled negotiations for months, making it unlikely that the bill will pass this year.
At issue is how much power the FDA should have to eliminate nicotine and other harmful ingredients from cigarettes. Manufacturers fear too much control could lead to a total ban on cigarettes.
Democrats, who say their goal is not to ban cigarettes, want a bill that would specifically allow the FDA to remove harmful ingredients from tobacco products. Republicans insist the current draft of the bill grants the FDA that authority, but Democrats and public health groups argue its “vague language” would provide loopholes for cigarette manufacturers to protest FDA decisions.
“It would severely restrict the authority of the FDA to require changes in tobacco products to make cigarettes less harmful and addictive,” said Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “We want to make sure that the language is tight and clear.”
Philip Morris officials worry that too much FDA control would be the death of cigarettes.
“We don’t think the FDA should be able to ban cigarettes entirely,” said Mark Berlind, legislative counsel to Altria Group Inc., the Philip Morris’ parent company. “The regulatory system is not supposed to be about prohibition of a product, but about reducing its harm.”
If harmful ingredients are removed, Mr. Berlind wants confirmation that the resulting product is still “recognizable as a cigarette.”
Willmore said the public-health advocates have additional concerns with the bill. They are disturbed that it does not give the FDA authority to monitor the health impacts of new, allegedly safer cigarette products, he said. They also contend that the bill would weaken existing FDA rules restricting the marketing of tobacco to children.
“We want to see the FDA enforce requirements such as checking for IDs, banning vending machine sales of cigarettes and restricting magazines from advertising [cigarettes] in color,” he said.
Last week, tobacco negotiations came to a halt after Sen. Kennedy rejected a “best and final offer” from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the health committee. Sen. Kennedy said Sen. Gregg’s bill provided the public with inadequate protection from unhealthy tobacco products.
“Unfortunately, the proposed legislation which Republicans put forth today falls far short of the strong FDA authority which is needed to effectively do the job,” Sen. Kennedy said in a statement. “A weak bill is worse than no bill at all because it would give the public a false impression that their health was being protected.”
Anti-smoking lobbyists agreed that the proposal “would result in weak legislation that does not protect the public health,” according to a statement from the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “We have made concessions and proposed compromises in an attempt to resolve the outstanding issues, but this offer does not address the concerns that we have raised in any significant way.”
Sen. Gregg said his proposal would give the FDA “significant new powers that will lead to a substantially strengthened public health policy.”
He said it would grant the FDA greater authority over tobacco companies’ advertising and promotion and require the FDA to monitor the effects of new tobacco products.
“After 10 years of making political statements and using children as political pawns rather than enacting true reform, I tried to make something work,” Sen. Gregg said in a statement. “It is disappointing that yet again, the other side is going to walk away from [an]opportunity to pass legislation that will make a difference.”
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), who helped design the bill and is working with both sides to save it, was optimistic negotiations would continue.
“I believe the sides will be able to come together because it’s in everyone’s best interest to do so,” Sen. DeWine said in a statement. “We are not that far apart. There is no reason why we cannot get a deal.”
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Sen. Kennedy, said the senator would be willing to negotiate another draft of the bill if there was some “significant movement” toward increasing the FDA’s authority over tobacco.
So far, there has been no such movement, he said. “We have seen no more signs of negotiations. Based on current drafts, it is tough to imagine that we can get a bill done before the end of this year.”
