Big Tobacco Sues Feds over Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Labels Research Paper

Big Tobacco Sues Feds over Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Labels - Research Paper Example Congress, 2009). Till 1996, the FDA has no vital role to play as far as the regulation of tobacco products is concerned. It was then controlled through an array of state and congressional legislation. In most of the US States, statues deal with the issue of selling the tobacco products to minors and licensing for its distributions to retailers. In the year 1950, all states had put the ban on sale of tobacco products to minors at that time purchase age varied from state to state (U.S. Congress, 2009). The law in vogue impressed upon the large size tobacco manufacturing companies to disclose publically all the ingredients used in the cigarette manufacturing process. It should also highlight the poisonous contents used in it. The company should refrain from using the mild words just as light or ultra light to dispel the impression of its harm on human body. The bill in force makes the cigarette manufacturers accountable on wooing the adults and children to become addiction of smoking (U .S. Congress, 2009). In the eyes of critics, the promulgated act is effectuate in the sense that it can reduce the nicotine level in the cigarette to some extend rather than wipe it out completely. The affordable level of nicotine may encourage smokers to smoke more. Market restrictions definitely put the hurdles to find out the smoking alternatives to smoke cigarette. In FDA v Brown & Williamson case, the Supreme Court of United States of America held that since the congress had not delegated the authority to FDA to control the damages arising out of the use of tobacco products, therefore to fill the gap and to ensure effective control, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act came into being. Secondly the former American Administration over acted the delegated power of congress in this respect. As per the Senate bill, health-warning label should cover fifty percent of front and back portions of the package. The word warning thereon should be in capital letter. The number of opposition members in the Senate largely hailing from tobacco cultivating states, supported the ongoing move to discourage the smoking in spite of the facts that they have deep roots in the tobacco industry. In the larger national interest they are ready to afford the financial losses to keep away their children and adults from the bad habits of smoking (Gifford, 2010). In order to have an effective control over the damages of human health they have suggested the following measures to be implemented (U.S. Congress, 2009): 1. FDA should have tobacco control centers at its disposal to regulate the substance, marketing and sale of tobacco products. 2. Importers and tobacco companies should reveal the ingredients of their existing products and get approval from FDA. Approval for any new tobacco product should also be sought from the same authority. 3. FDA should have the authority to change the tobacco substance in any product to lessen could be damages on the body of its users. 4. I t should shun the application of sugar coated definition cigarette, which is contrary to section 3(1) of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (Connolly, 2004). New rules are to be introduced to prevent sales through direct channel or to conduct between retailer and consumer in order to curb the eye catching advertising campaign,