Subscribe to Cigar Aficionado and receive the digital edition of our Premier issue FREE!

Email this page Print this page
Share this page

Appeals Court Upholds FDA-Mandated Graphic Warnings

Andrew Nagy
Posted: March 21, 2012

(continued from page 1)

The legal fight regarding graphic warnings appears far from over as a federal appeals court has ruled that the Food and Drug Administration is allowed to force tobacco companies to affix the warnings on cigarette packaging.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled on Monday that graphic warning labels can convey factual information (as the textual warnings on tobacco products do now), and therefore are constitutionally sound.

Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch wrote in her opinion that "people with the same illness can and often will suffer a variety of differing symptoms, but one wouldn't say that a list of symptoms characterizing a particular medical condition is nonfactual and opinion-based as a result. So too with graphic images."

While these warning labels would only apply to cigarettes, people in the cigar industry fear that such regulation could one day be applied to cigars. It’s not without precedent. Cigars sold in Mexico, for example, must carry graphic warnings very similar to the one struck down in this ruling. And, for a short time in 2010, New York City forced tobacconists to post similar graphic warnings at the point of sale and in their shops—a judge later struck down the requirement.

Three cigarette makers, including a subsidiary of Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group PLC (the parent company of Altadis S.A.) had originally filed the lawsuit in Kentucky in 2009, after the FDA was granted control over the U.S. tobacco industry and the agency tried to mandate nine extremely graphic warning labels. Some of the graphic images included a cloud of smoke near a newborn’s face and a dead smoker lying on an autopsy table with stitches in his chest.

The cigarette makers argued such warnings violated their right to free speech, but in 2010, U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley ruled against the tobacco companies, saying the warnings did not infringe on their rights. Monday’s ruling was the result of the cigarette makers’ appeal.

This lawsuit is separate from one that was filed last August in Washington by the same cigarette makers, which resulted in a federal judge blocking the new requirement earlier this year.

While the court said graphic warnings were not unconstitutional, it shied away from ruling specifically on the nine graphic warning labels in question.

"This court did not address the constitutionality of the nine graphic images the FDA seeks to impose," said Bryan Hatchell, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in a USA Today report.

The FDA has already made its impact on the cigarette indusdtry, banning all flavored cigarettes save for menthol, limiting the release of new products, limiting advertising and placing restrictions on the use of words such as "light"—and other tobacco products, but so far the cigar industry has remained largely unaffected. In 2010, though, the agency publicly declared it intends to regulate premium cigars, too.

As a response, the Cigar Rights of America and the International Premium Cigars & Pipe Retailers association have been involved with introducing two bills, S. 1461 and H.R. 1639, that aim to remove the FDA’s jurisdiction over the premium cigar industry.

Share |

Comments   2 comment(s)

John Rohrer — Las Vegas, NV., USA,  —  March 23, 2012 10:23am ET

Does this mean that McDonalds and Burger King will be required to show photos of horribly obese or diabetic infections on hamburger cartons and wrappers?


matthew.yotko@yahoo.com March 24, 2012 6:50pm ET

No... But it SHOULD. It's amazing to me that the same organization that purports to be the watchdog and bastion of health and safety for food and drugs would require this, and then allow fast food chains to put plastics and addictive chemicals in their food with no notice whatsoever to the consumer. Or, better yet, to actively and aggressively restrict and prohibit the sale of all natural products in examples such as the raids on Amish farmers who sell milk and cheese.

The long and short of it is that you have to ask yourself who they're looking out for. I think you'll find that if you examine the question closely, you'll come to the determination that it most definitely isn't We, The People.


You must be logged in to post a comment.

Log In If You're Already Registered At Cigar Aficionado Online

Forgot your password?

Not Registered Yet? Sign up–It's FREE.

FIND A RETAILER NEAR YOU

Search By:

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

    

Cigar Insider

Cigar Aficionado News Watch
A Free E-Mail Newsletter

Introducing a FREE newsletter from the editors of Cigar Aficionado!
Sign Up Today