Philip Morris' FDA gambit: good for public health?
- PMID: 16392744
- DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200032
Philip Morris' FDA gambit: good for public health?
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine whether the 2004 USA Dewine-Kennedy Bill is congruent with Philip Morris' core policy principles for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of tobacco and what impact that would have on the public health. I compared the Dewine-Kennedy Bill with 1999 Philip Morris core policy principles for FDA regulation. Additional supporting data on FDA regulation from 1998 to the present were collected from previously secret tobacco industry documents, relevant newspaper reports from Nexis-Lexis, federal statutes, and federal regulations. The main outcome measure of the study is a comparison, summary, and analysis of the Dewine-Kennedy Bill with Philip Morris' core principles for FDA regulation, and the result is that the Dewine-Kennedy Bill is compatible with almost all of Philip Morris' core principles on FDA regulation. In conclusion, The Dewine-Kennedy Bill, at best, was mixed in terms of the enhancement of the public health. On the one hand, proponents of this legislation argued stronger FDA regulatory requirements would have some effect on reducing youth and adult tobacco consumption. On the other hand, tobacco products would have remained a politically and economically viable and legal product consumed by millions of Americans many of whom would have continued to suffer from tobacco-related illnesses and deaths.
Comment in
-
Public health vs. Philip Morris: is it a zero-sum game?J Public Health Policy. 2005 Dec;26(4):469-73. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200031. J Public Health Policy. 2005. PMID: 16392745 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Turning free speech into corporate speech: Philip Morris' efforts to influence U.S. and European journalists regarding the U.S. EPA report on secondhand smoke.Prev Med. 2004 Sep;39(3):568-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.02.014. Prev Med. 2004. PMID: 15313097 Review.
-
Public health vs. Philip Morris: is it a zero-sum game?J Public Health Policy. 2005 Dec;26(4):469-73. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200031. J Public Health Policy. 2005. PMID: 16392745 No abstract available.
-
Legal developments relevant to FDA authority.Food Drug Law J. 2007;62(2):441-4. Food Drug Law J. 2007. PMID: 17632974 No abstract available.
-
The need for FDA regulation of tobacco products.Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2002 Winter;3(1):101-8. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2002. PMID: 12825428 No abstract available.
-
Legislating "sound science": the role of the tobacco industry.Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S20-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.050963. Am J Public Health. 2005. PMID: 16030333 Review.
Cited by
-
FDA legislation.Tob Control. 2007 Aug;16(4):217-8. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.021931. Tob Control. 2007. PMID: 17652229 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Corporate image and public health: an analysis of the Philip Morris, Kraft, and Nestlé websites.J Health Commun. 2012;17(5):582-600. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.635776. Epub 2012 Mar 16. J Health Commun. 2012. PMID: 22420639 Free PMC article.