1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Consumer Affairs

Judge Blocks New Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels

Said tobacco companies will probably win their suit against the new labels


PhotoThose highly graphic images the government hoped to use as warning labels on cigarette packages will not appear – at least not anytime soon.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon has granted a stay for tobacco companies, who have sued to block the use of the labels, arguing they violate the companies' First Amendment rights. Leon granted the stay, saying he believes the tobacco companies will win in their suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Until that case is tried, Leon ruled the labels cannot be used.

HHS proposed the new warning labels almost exactly one year ago. They were designed to have more impact than the text warnings that have appeared on cigarette packages since the mid 1960s. The proposed new labels were to appear on the top half of the package and include graphic – some might same gruesome images – designed to deter smokers.

PhotoThe nine new labels included pictures of a diseased lung, a corpse, diseased gums and a man smoking through a hole in his throat.

Public response to the images was mixed.  A ConsumerAffairs.com analysis of about 6,100 postings on Twitter, Facebook and other social media found opinion roughly evenly divided, although the number of comments was too small to draw any conclusions.

Health advocates protest

“The ruling ignores the overwhelming, decades-long need for strong cigarette warning labels and allows Big Tobacco to proceed ’business as usual,’ continuing to promote its addictive and deadly products," said Christopher W. Hansen, President, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

“For decades, the tobacco industry has grown increasingly aggressive in preying upon America’s youth with misleading and fraudulent marketing practices, while the warning labels have not been changed in 25 years," Hansen added. "Larger, graphic warning labels have the potential to encourage adults to quit smoking cigarettes and deter children from starting in the first place."

"Judge Leon's ruling ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence about the need for the new cigarette warnings and their effectiveness. It also ignores decades of First Amendment precedent that support the right of the government to require strong warning labels to protect the public health," said Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Leading cause of death

In proposing the big change in warning labels, HHS pointed out that tobacco use is the leading cause of premature and preventable death in the United States -- responsible for 443,000 deaths each year. Thirty percent of all cancer deaths are due to tobacco. Each day 1,200 lives of current and former smokers are lost prematurely due to tobacco-related diseases.

The government strategy included a proposal issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled "Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements."

PhotoSpecifically, it detailed a requirement of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act that nine new larger and more noticeable textual warning statements and color graphic images depicting the negative health consequences of smoking appear on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements.

The final rule was to have gone into effect in September 2012, requiring all cigarettes sold in the U.S. to carry the enhanced warning.

Five cigarette companies filed suit in Washington last year, seeking to block the warnings. The industry's lawyer argued that the government can require the tobacco companies to print a straightforward and “essentially uncontroversial” warning on the package, but said “turning cigarette packs into mini billboards for anti-smoking messages” crosses the line constitutionally.

Photo


Share your Comments

Please enable javascript to comment on this page
Peter Olotka (Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:34:57 +0000): Your Free speech is at risk when you are dead from smoking. Adults are not the target of cig ads, children are. 90% of all adult smokers started as kids. Go ahead ask any smoker when they started. Almost no one starts smoking as an adult. Children respond to graphics more than to words. Adult smokers with kids will NEVER be able to tell their children not to smoke while blowing smoke in their faces. So the govt. has to protect them.
Joseph Ringling (Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:32:43 +0000): Couldn't agree more. I would add that Tobacco companies are pond scum (that's putting it mildly). Lost too many friends & family to tobacco. It's high time graphical warnings depict reality.
Bill Ham (Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:30:59 +0000): I don't even know why cigarettes haven't been banned all together. Oh yea, the tobaco industries own Washington.
Debra Kay Dove (Wed, 09 Nov 2011 08:48:04 +0000): I hate cigarettes, am tired of others smoking and blowing the smoke in my face. I am tired of all the smokers being sent into my home as my caretaker and smoke all over their clothes making me sick. I never chose to smoke and I am not wanting to. smell the smoke of others. I have a lung condition from chemicals where I worked, never asked for that either. Someone has got to protect the rest of us out here. It is like everyone they were sending into my home smoked cigarettes even when my. doctor and I both requested this all cease and dissist. I am on oxygen, for goodness sakes, at least they could have known. not to wear their smoking clothes in my own home. I have complained and complained about this. One told me she could get. away with it because the head of the agency and the nurse smoked. Does everyone but me smoke in West Virginia? Is this not costing much more in health costs and what does this mean down the road for the cost of health care? Someone here really needs to do something about the situation, as it is totally and I mean totally out of hand.
Colleen Clark (Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:33:48 +0000): I echo your comments!
Quantcast