Feb. 29, 2000 (Washington) -- Is the tobacco industry's black hat somehow tu
Feb. 29, 2000 (Washington) -- Is the tobacco industry's black hat somehow turning white? The nation's leading cigarette maker, Philip Morris, says it is interested in some federal regulations over cigarettes.
This surprise announcement comes as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the industry's case against the FDA's aggressive 1995 proposal to regulate cigarettes as both drugs and medical devices.
"Our opposition to that [FDA] plan does not mean that there can't be useful and sensible regulation of cigarette manufacturers that would be good for our industry and good for smokers," Philip Morris spokesman Brendan McCormick tells WebMD.
"We need to wait for the Supreme Court to start the process," McCormick says. "There is an opening here to come up with some type of legislation or regulation that can respect an adult's right to choose to smoke while at the same time making sure there's no chance of prohibition."
President Clinton today told reporters he was "heartened" by the Philip Morris announcement. According to White House adviser Bruce Reed, the news was "a sign that sooner or later, government regulation of cigarettes is inevitable."
But the nation's public health community, a veteran of years of battle with the tobacco industry, isn't impressed with the company's newer, softer line. "Philip Morris has agreed to do nothing except change the subject," Paul Billings, a government relations official with the American Lung Association, tells WebMD.
"I'm not at all excited about it," Ron Davis, MD, director of the Henry Ford Health System's Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, tells WebMD, "unless I'm told that they are willing to support FDA authority over tobacco just as FDA has over drugs and medical devices."
That is assuredly not the case, the cigarette maker says. "We want to sit down and talk about what reasonable regulation of cigarettes as cigarettes would look like," McCormick tells WebMD.
Like the pharmaceutical industry's recent softening of its posture toward a new Medicare drug benefit or United Healthcare's decision to give medical decisions back to doctors, the announcement likely has its motivations in public relations and political goals.
"I don't think this company has an altruistic bone in its body," Mary Aronson, a litigation and policy analyst for investors, tells WebMD. "It's just not in the nature of business."
And Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, tells WebMD, "They'll give an inch to buy a decade of the status quo."
On the public relations front, Bill Godshall, executive director of Smoke-Free Pennsylvania, tells WebMD that Philip Morris is "trying to tell the public, 'We're good guys. Forget that we're the leading cause of death in this country.'" According to Godshall, "We don't feel any sincerity on the industry's part to really work for reasonable regulations that would protect the public health."
If the industry wins the Supreme Court case, as some say is likely to happen, why would it be interested in regulations?
In the realm of politics, a senior White House official tells WebMD, "If Philip Morris thinks it is inevitable that Congress is going to take this up -- good, bad, or otherwise -- they want to be in the driver's seat. Not only have a seat at the table ... but be in complete and total control of the process."
But Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) tells WebMD, "There is a degree of suspicion. They have been the leaders of the resistance movement."
Meanwhile, in states around the country, class-action and individual lawsuits are putting tobacco firms on an unprecedented defensive. "The industry wants peace," says Aronson. "Whenever there's static such as lawsuits, that causes the stocks to go up and down like rollercoasters."
Aronson predicts that the industry might be likely to make its support for regulation of cigarette marketing conditional on new liability limits or the establishment of a more predictable compensation system for individuals with grievances against the industry.
Meanwhile, the FDA says that it has garnered almost $1 million in penalties on retailers who have failed to comply with agency rules to block underage tobacco sales.
?
