Listing Details
| ID: | 127 |
| Title: | Tobacco News Analysis And Commentary |
| URL: | http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/ |
| Category: | News & Media: Analysis & Opinion |
| Description: | Physician Michael Siegel who specialised in preventive medicine and public health writes about the stories behind tobacco-related news. |
| FDA Makes Errant Analogy in Defending Graphic Warning Labels; Unclear if It Will Be Able to Address the Actual Constitutional Issues - Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000 |
| In oral arguments before Judge Richard Leon of the D.C. District court, the Department of Justice apparently used an analogy to defend the FDA's proposed graphic warning labels. According tothis article: "Mark Stern, a Justice Department lawyer, compared the FDA mandates to warnings on packages of charcoal telling people to not use it indoors, noting that 28 people a year die from carbon monoxide poisoning for using charcoal inside their homes. With cigarettes, there are 440,000 deaths, Stern said. 'That's a pretty big interest,' he added. 'It's no secret that the government wants people to stop smoking.'" The Rest of the Story As with many of the arguments provided by the FDA to defend the graphic warning labels with a 1-800 quit line phone number on them, this one steers clear of the actual constitutional issues involved in the case. The analogy is an errant one, as the FDA is not requiring a warning to let people know that it is unsafe to use cigarettes in a particular way. The appropriate analogy would be to a required warning on packages of charcoal urging people not to use the product at all because it generates poisonous carbon monoxide when burned, and requiring a picture of a person suffocating to death from carbon monoxide poisoning, or on a respirator unable to breathe. Would the FDA argue that it is not an infringement on the free speech rights of Kingsford and other charcoal makers to require them to put a prominent warning on charcoal bags urging people not to buy the product? The constitutional issue is not whether or not the government can require warning labels. The tobacco companies concede that point. The question is whether these are simply factual warning labels or whether they are, instead, compelling speech by manufacturers which is more than factual, and which forces the manufacturers to actually advocate against the purchase of their own products. The graphic warning labels, as proposed by the FDA, are tantamount to requiring the manufacturers of a particular product to make public statements urging people not to purchase their products. This seems particularly intrusive on First Amendment rights because it is not an issue of restricting speech; it is actually an issue ofcompellingspeech: speech which goes against the interests of the company and forces them to urge their own customers not to purchase the product. I would really like to see the FDA defend this specific point. So far, it has not done so, and has not even tried to do so. Unless they do so, Judge Leon is not going to change his mind. Nor is an appellate court likely to overturn Leon's decision. Compact flourescent light bulbs have many advantages, including the use of much less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs. However, they contain mercury, and if a bulb breaks, mercury vapor is released, which can be harmful to humans. In fact, if a bulb breaks, the EPA recommends that people leave the room (although they provide directions on how to clean up the spill, which is confusing because how can you clean it up if you have to leave the room?) Clearly, it would be constitutional for the government to require a warning label on compact flourescent light bulbs to warn people that the bulbs contain mercury, that this mercury could be dangerous, and that care should be taken not to break the bulb. However, would it not be an infringement of free speech for the government to instead require a warning on the bulbs which urges people not to buy them and refers them to a 1-800 number of an organization that advocates against the use of compact flourescent bulbs and provides counseling to consumers on how to avoid these bulbs? (And which requires pictures of people dying from mercury poisoning) This is the apt analogy, rather than the warning against firing up the charcoal grill inside your home.  |
| Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation Willing to Increase Breast Cancer Morbidity to Make a Political Statement Against Abortion Rights - Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:09:00 +0000 |
| Sinking as low as any public health charity foundation in recent history, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation - which purports to have a mission of fighting breast cancer - is "cutting off grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country to provide breast cancer screenings, including breast exams and mammogram referrals," according to anarticlein theBoston Globe. The funding that is being cut amounts to a total of $680,000, which provided approximately 170,000 breast exams and resulted in more than 6,400 mammography referrals. The reason for the withdrawal of funding: "Komen -- which sponsors walks and races to raise money for breast cancer research -- said it halted the grants because of a controversial investigation of Planned Parenthood by a Republican congressman, who claims the organization is using government funds for abortions...". The Rest of the Story This story is, quite frankly, disgusting. The rest of the story is that the Komen Foundation is putting women's lives at risk - eliminating funding that could well restrict thousands of women's access to potentially life-saving breast exams and mammograms - and therefore is willing to knowingly increase breast cancer morbidity and mortality. All for one purpose: to make a political statement against abortion rights and succumb to political pressure from conservative right-to-life groups. In my book, there are two things you don't ever mix: breast cancer screening and treatment and politics. If Komen is going to do that, they might as well run over a bunch of women with a bus. This is essentially what they are doing. The bus they are driving has a big Right-to-Life sign on the side of it. But to get their message across, they are taking a bunch of women's lives with them. And to make matters worse, the women they are running over are more likely to be poor and more likely to come from communities of color. After all, wealthier women have more easy access to women's health services and are less likely to need the services of Planned Parenthood. Komen is telling poor women, and especially poor black women: Sorry. We are going to have to deprive you of breast cancer screening because we need to make a political statement. Your risk for fatal breast cancer is going to rise, but it's all for the greater good: we're making a vital political statement in opposition to your right to an abortion. You know - breast cancer does not care about political affiliations or views. It affects women regardless of their political views on abortion rights. It affects women who support abortion rights and women who oppose abortion rights. Making a political statement at the expense of potential breast cancer patients is about as despicable as it gets in public health. Not only is the Komen Foundation destroying its mission by acting in a way to support breast cancer, but it is also alienating thousands of women, including many with the very disease that the Foundation purports to be fighting. I can't think of a worse slap in the face to breast cancer patients and to women in general. Moreover, the Komen Foundation has now destroyed its own brand. It has taken what was a very successful public health brand and turned it into nothing more than a right-wing, conservative front group, now masquerading as a health charity. On a personal level, I will - sadly - discontinue my contributions to the Komen Foundation unless and until they restore this funding to Planned Parenthood's breast cancer screening services. I know many fellow physicians are taking a similar stand. Were I a physician on the Komen Foundation's Scientific Advisory Board, my resignation letter would have already been in the mail.  |
| Study Shows Carotid Artery Plaque Screening Does Not Promote Smoking Cessation; Provides Further Evidence that Graphic Warning Labels Will Not Work - Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:54:00 +0000 |
| A newstudypublished online ahead of print last week in theArchives of Internal Medicinereports that ultrasound (US) screening of smokers for carotid artery disease and providing them with pictures of their blocked arteries fails to promote smoking cessation. The study results were as follows: "At baseline, participants (mean age, 51.1 years; 45.0% women) smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day with a median duration of 32 years. The US [intervention] group had a high prevalence of carotid plaques (57.9%). At 12 months, smoking cessation rates were high, but did not differ between the US and control groups (24.9% vs 22.1%; P = .45). In the US group, cessation rates did not differ according to the presence or absence of plaques." The study concludes: "In smokers, carotid plaque screening performed in addition to thorough smoking cessation counseling is not associated with increased rates of smoking cessation or control of cardiovascular risk factors." The Rest of the Story Since showing smokers graphic pictures of their own blocked carotid arteries does not cause them to quit smoking, it is highly doubtful that showing them graphic pictures of other people with smoking-related diseases will work either. This study therefore provides further evidence to suggest that the new graphic warning labels that will be required by the FDA later this year (pending legislation challenging the constitutionality of the regulations) are unlikely to have any substantial effect in promoting smoking cessation among existing smokers. The FDA has already conceded that there is a reasonably likely chance that the regulations will have no effect on smoking prevalence. While almost no scientific studies support the hypothesis that graphic warning labels will cause smokers to quit, a wide range of evidence suggests that this intervention is unlikely to be very effective. The rest of the story is that the graphic warning labels are yet another part of the hoax that is the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This legislation was designed to make it look like politicians and health groups were fighting Big Tobacco when in fact, the legislation does virtually nothing to put a significant dent in smoking rates.  |