The U.S. Federal Trade Commission withdrew its endorsement of a four-decade-old test that enables cigarette makers to claim some brands contain less tar and nicotine.
The FTC today rescinded its guidance, issued in 1966, that the method for measuring tar and nicotine levels in Cigarettes was an objective basis for such claims.
“The commission will not allow its stamp of approval on a test method that is confusing or misleading to consumers,” the FTC said in a statement accompanying the rule change. “Advertisers should no longer use terms suggesting the FTC’s endorsement or approval of any specific test method.”
The FTC statement noted that since 1966, the scientific consensus has changed about the health risks of smoking. When the guidance was first issued, public health experts believed that reducing tar and nicotine also cut the risk of cancer from smoking, the commission said.
“Scientific consensus” now holds that “the test method is sufficiently flawed to make statements of tar and nicotine yields” unhelpful to consumers, the FTC said.
Commissioner Jon Leibowitz wrote that the agency’s action “ensures that tobacco companies may not wrap their misleading tar and nicotine ratings in a cloak of government sponsorship.”
The decision was hailed in a statement by Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey as calling “into question the ability of tobacco companies to continue marketing so-called ‘light’ and ‘low-tar’ Cigarettes.”
Legislation
Lautenberg, who sponsored legislation to bar cigarette companies from making advertising claims based on the “FTC method,” said the decision means “tobacco companies can no longer rely on the government to back up a flawed testing method that tricks smokers into thinking those Cigarettes deliver less tar and nicotine.”
Philip Morris USA, the largest U.S. tobacco company, said today in a statement that it’s reviewing the FTC’s action. The unit of Richmond, Virginia-based Altria Group Inc. said it continues to work with federal authorities to improve and adopt a standardized testing method.
Reynolds American Inc., the second-largest U.S. tobacco company, is studying the FTC’s decision and has no comment, spokeswoman Maura Payne said. Ron Milstein, general counsel for the third-largest, Lorillard Inc., didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.
Scientific Proof
Legislation that passed the House 326-102 in July would require scientific proof for advertising claims for “low-tar” and “light” Cigarettes. That legislation also empowers the Food and Drug Administration to regulate such health claims and to develop a test method for determining the level of tar and nicotine in Cigarettes.
After approving the test known as the “FTC method,” the agency conducted its own tests for 20 years before it closed its government lab in 1987, according to 2007 congressional testimony by FTC Chairman William Kovacic. Since then a tobacco-industry-sponsored lab has conducted the tests, according to Kovacic’s testimony to a Senate committee.
The FTC also published periodic reports on the amounts of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yielded by Cigarettes. The agency discontinued publishing such reports in 2000 “in light of concerns over the test method used to measure those yields,” Kovacic told lawmakers.
Court Challenges
The FTC has gone to court to challenge advertising claims about the tar and nicotine ratings of Cigarettes. In the early 1980s, the FTC won a court ruling that Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.’s claim that Barclay Cigarettes had only 1 milligram of tar was deceptive.
In 1995 it reached an agreement with American Tobacco Co. to settle claims the company misused the ratings to claim that 10 packs of Carlton Cigarettes yielded less tar than a single pack of other brands.
The Supreme Court is considering whether smokers can sue tobacco companies for marketing Cigarettes as “light” and “low tar.” The justices are scheduled to rule in the next several months.
In a statement, Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, said the FTC action gives “important support” for class-action lawsuits “to hold cigarette manufacturers accountable for the harm caused by their deceptive marketing.”