Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

Tobacco Wins a Major Reprieve ; in One of This Term's Biggest Cases, Supreme Court Slaps Down the Administration's Effort to Regulate the Industry

Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

Tobacco Wins a Major Reprieve ; in One of This Term's Biggest Cases, Supreme Court Slaps Down the Administration's Effort to Regulate the Industry

Article excerpt

The US Supreme Court has handed the tobacco industry a major victory by ruling that the Food and Drug Administration does not have authority to regulate tobacco.

In a long-awaited decision, the nation's highest court split 5 to 4 in determining that national lawmakers in Congress - rather than unelected bureaucrats at the FDA - hold the power to regulate Big Tobacco.

The March 21 decision deals a severe blow to President Clinton in his efforts to curb youth smoking. It puts the issue of regulation back in the aisles of Congress.

In its ruling, the court said regulation may be accomplished through direct legislation or by expanding the FDA's mandate to include federal rules governing products containing addictive nicotine, such as cigarettes. But failing such a direct grant of FDA authority, the agency is powerless to act on its own, even for the most noble of causes.

"Congress, for better or worse, has created a distinct regulatory scheme for tobacco products [and] squarely rejected proposals to give the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writes for the majority.

"Owing to its unique place in American history and society, tobacco has its own unique political history," she says. "Given this history and the breadth of the authority that the FDA has asserted, we are obliged to defer not to the agency's expansive construction of the statute, but to Congress' consistent judgment to deny the FDA this power."

The question now is: If the FDA is powerless to enforce regulations aimed at protecting children, will Congress take any action? Antitobacco activists say that is unlikely in an election year, in part because of substantial and well-placed campaign contributions made by Big Tobacco.

"Tobacco has lots of friends in the Congress," says Kathryn Kahler Vose of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "They've spent years and millions of dollars buying lots of influence. Clearly, passing legislation will be a battle."

But, she adds, "The public feels strongly that tobacco should be regulated."

The high-court ruling comes as Philip Morris, the nation's largest tobacco company, is suggesting a dialogue with Congress and the public-health community to discuss some form of regulation.

"We are ready and eager to engage in a useful and positive discussion on these issues," said a statement issued by Philip Morris. "Federal regulation of cigarettes - as cigarettes dealing with youth smoking while respecting an adult's right to smoke - makes sense for smokers and manufacturers alike."

The industry's conciliatory stance may be intended to head off an antitobacco backlash in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, say analysts say. They see the move as consistent with an industry public-relations campaign to boost its image after damaging revelations about Big Tobacco deception over research findings and marketing techniques.

Skeptical antitobacco activists say the industry wants to position itself to play a role in a regulation process that may become inevitable. Regulations, they say, could actually make it easier for the tobacco industry to sell and market certain kinds of cigarettes.

"The more the public engages on this issue - when they realize tobacco is a rogue product, promoted by a rogue industry, exempt from consumer-protection and health-and-safety laws - then we think there will be a lot of support [for congressional legislation]," says Paul Billings of the American Lung Association. …

Author Advanced search


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.