|
|
CONSUMER NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
|
|
![]() |
"Little Cigars" Labeling Loophole Closing |
|||||
|
April 4, 2007
The federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposed the changes after and the states asked the agency in June 2006 to strengthen and clarify the legal definitions of cigars and cigarettes. The mislabeling of cigarettes as "little cigars" allows manufacturers to evade health warnings, advertising restrictions, payments under the national tobacco settlement and taxes, which are much higher on cigarettes than cigars. "I am pleased that federal authorities heeded our request and took the first step to stop the dangerous and disingenuous mislabeling of cigarettes as 'little cigars,'" Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "If it looks, smokes and tastes like a cigarette, it's a cigarette, delivering addiction, illness and early death to its users. "These regulations -- setting specific rules for wrapping paper, tobacco, filters and packaging ---will stop tobacco companies from exploiting legal loopholes to falsely market cigarettes as little cigars," he added. The federal government traditionally has used a jumble of regulations, interpretations and administrative rulings to define the differences between cigars and cigarettes. Under the new proposal, federal authorities would adopt formal regulations that set specific standards for the content, wrapping and packaging of cigarettes and cigars. In a March 26 letter, the officials praised the draft regulations, while urging changes. Those changes include testing to assure that cigars contain cigar tobacco in their wrappers and fillers and banning the sale of "little cigars" in packaging resembling cigarette packaging. States signing the letter were: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Report Your Experience
|
|
||||
Advertisement
|
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|