FDA's graphic warning labels for cigarettes are constitutional, US appeals court rules

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

March 21, 2024 6:32 PM EDT


March 21 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday said a U.S. government requirement that cigarette packs and advertisements contain graphic warnings about the dangers of smoking is constitutional, in a victory for the Biden administration and a defeat for the tobacco industry.

Reversing a lower court ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans found that the 11 warnings required under a 2020 Food and Drug Administration rule were "factual and uncontroversial," and satisfied the First Amendment.

RJ Reynolds, ITG Brands, Liggett and other tobacco companies complained that the warnings violated their free speech rights by compelling them to endorse images that they said misrepresented or exaggerated the harms from smoking. Lawyers for the tobacco companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services, which both appealed the lower court ruling, did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Though smoking has declined significantly over the decades, nearly one in eight American adults still smoke, and cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans a year, government data show. The FDA rule adopted in March 2020 during the Trump administration required that warnings about the risks of smoking occupy the top 50% of cigarette packs and top 20% of ads.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/fda-cigarette-warning-labels-satisfy-first-amendment-us-appeals-court-rules-2024-03-21/

[Aussie105]

1. We have had health warnings on packets here for ages.

No longer any pictures of a lonesome cowboy on a horse on Marlboro advertising.
TV advertising was banned decades ago.

And the price? Oh my, they are jacked up regularly. Twice a year. On purpose. By the government.

[link:|

The old on the outside, the new in the middle.
Enjoy!

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I remember when that type of labeling was first being debated by CTP (a Center within FDA)

using those and similar examples, and that was way before this current 2020 case.

I.e., it started 15 years ago in 2009 with passage of H.R.1256 - Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which also created CTP (Center for Tobacco Products).

IIRC, the "first amendment" issue took precedence.

It's just like what happened with alcohol (specifically "spirits", the advertising for which were "voluntarily" removed from broadcast TV and later were returned in 2009, with the underlying first amendment issue there).

[Oopsie Daisy]

6. More images... more warnings.

[Princess Turandot]

2. 3-0 decision, in the 5th Circuit no less...

The case was first heard in East Texas, which seems odd, since the major companies that brought the initial case are primarily located in the Carolinas. Tobacco isn't cultivated in Texas. A Trump judge, but these regs came out during Trump's administration.

[maxsolomon]

9. Judge shopping

5th circuit is where you take conservative bullshit.

[PatrickforB]

3. Geez. Shareholder primacy capitalism never, ever rests.

This is why we need strong enforcement from government.

And, if we REALLY wanted to fix stuff like this, we would legislate a minor change in the rules around corporate governance:

Instead of shareholder profits being held above (by legal doctrine) the interests of workers, consumers, truth in media reporting, and the environment, we would instead require that corporate officers in publicly traded companies hold these things EQUAL to shareholder profits in importance.

Of course, we would also need to beef up the SEC, consumer protection and the EPA to ENFORCE these minor changes..

It would also be a really good idea to also ENFORCE current anti-trust laws. We are not doing all that well at that, either.

Add in a wealth tax, cap CEO pay and remove the tax incentives around executive compensation.

Lift the Social Security tax cap so really high earners pay their fair share.

Those tiny little things would go quite a ways toward keeping this republic going.

[Oopsie Daisy]

5. Excellent. Cigarette smoking should be banned anyway. Or tax-tax-tax them out of existence!

Cigarette smoking imposes a heavy toll on our nation, affecting our health, economy, and productivity. The costs are staggering. Smoking-related healthcare expenses burden our already-strained healthcare system, leading to increased insurance premiums and taxpayer-funded medical treatments. Moreover, the harmful effects of secondhand smoke further strain our healthcare resources.

Beyond healthcare costs, smoking diminishes workplace productivity. Frequent smoking breaks disrupt workflow and reduce efficiency, impacting both individual output and overall organizational productivity. The consequences extend beyond the workplace, as smoking-related illnesses lead to absenteeism and decreased economic output.

By addressing these issues head-on, we can protect our citizens and alleviate the strain on our nation. A substantial increase in cigarette taxes, such as $20 to $25 per pack, would serve as a powerful deterrent, discouraging new smokers from starting and motivating current smokers to quit. The generated revenue can be channeled into healthcare initiatives, supporting prevention programs, cessation resources, and treatment services.

In addition to the urgent need for higher cigarette taxes, we must stand behind the recent appeals court ruling supporting graphic warnings on cigarette packs and advertisements. This ruling is a vital victory for the Biden administration and a blow to the tobacco industry. The inclusion of graphic warnings is a constitutional measure that will empower consumers with crucial information about the dangers of smoking.

Consider this: if any other product were responsible for claiming the lives of 480,000 Americans annually, and harming the health of others, then swift action would be taken to ban it. (Lead pipes, lead-based paint, asbestos, phthalates in plastic/toys, lawn darts, drop-side baby beds, etc.) Smoking deserves no exception.

We must prioritize public health above the interests of the tobacco industry and take comprehensive steps to protect our citizens from the devastating consequences of smoking. If gross-out photos of the harms of smoking help, then I'm all for it!

[Miguelito Loveless]

7. We are still debating this?

Jeebus!

[sl8]

8. FDA pictures of proposed warning labels: (graphic)

FILE - This image provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Thursday, Aug. 15, 2019, shows proposed cigarette warning labels. A federal rule requiring that cigarette packs and advertising include graphic images demonstrating the effects of smoking, including pictures of smoke-damaged lungs and feet blackened by diminished blood flow, does not violate the First Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, March 21, 2024. (FDA via AP, File)
AP

[CousinIT]

10. WTF? Goddamned tobacco companies are still fighting that and for the right to

keep slowly killing people? Any goddamned thing for corprat profit.

I'm sure this will end up before the Trump/Leonard Leo/Federalist Society crap court who will overturn that ruling and decide that no warning labels on the death sticks should be allowed. Because corprat profits are more important than ANYTHING else in MAGA-land.