Tobacco industry's reluctant farewell to flavor
Featured Opinion
Salwa Shameem
Issue date: 10/5/09 Section: Opinions
Say goodbye to flavored cigarettes because recently President Obama signed a law into effect that gives the Food and Drug Administration the ability to regulate the tobacco industry, allowing the FDA to ban the sale of flavored cigarettes. They claim ban is a preventive measure to decrease the number of minors smoking with the notion that tobacco companies purposely use flavor to lure an underaged audience. "Flavors make cigarettes and other tobacco products more appealing to youth, said Lawrence Dayton, director of the FDA's new Center for Tobacco Products. "Studies show 17-year-old smokers are three times as likely to use these products as are those over 25."
While the passage of this sweeping legislation is well intentioned in aims of preventing underaged smoking, it is both ambiguous and slightly contradictory in nature.
It doesn't seem too farfetched that young teenagers are more willing to smoke if cigarettes have a flavor label attached to them; after all a strawberry bidi sounds much more enticing than the average flavor-less cigarette.
However, the biggest contradiction comes from the legislation itself, as it calls for a ban on all flavors. All… except the most popular flavor, menthol. The FDA banned every other conceivable flavor ranging from candy, cola, and coffee but not the most smoked flavor and also one of the most harmful additives in cigarettes. If preventing adolescents from smoking at a young age was the intent of the ban, the FDA seems to have missed its mark considering forty-three percent of all smokers between the ages of twelve and seventeen smoke menthol cigarettes as stated by the American Legacy Foundation. While direct speculation cannot be passed on whether the other flavors banned will actually prevent minors from smoking yet, the trend of smoking show that those minors who seek cigarettes at an early age will do so regardless of luring flavors.
What the FDA has forgotten is that smoking is a personal choice for those of age and that government regulation of the ability to choose what flavor a citizen smokes is an infringement on one's rights. Anonymous third year biology major at UIC states, "I think it's hypocritical that we ban flavored cigarettes when there's all this talk about legalizing marijuana. There are far bigger problems in regard to smoking and its regulation, and banning all but the most popular flavor seems illogical."
The greatest ambiguity in banning flavored cigarettes is its new definition. It is now defined as any rolled tobacco product - regardless of the wrapper, in order to prevent tobacco companies from getting around the ban by labeling the product as a flavored cigar and then selling it as a cigarette. The problem with this is that now the FDA has the power to broaden its control of the sale of cigars as well. The weak legislation is too vague in terms of defining what should be banned.
For many non-smokers on campus, myself included, the banning of flavored cigarettes really makes no difference. For legal smokers, it is an infringement upon their right to smoke once legal substances. However, for conscientious citizens who wish to prevent under aged smoking, the FDA's ban is sloppy, vague, and contradictory at best.
While the passage of this sweeping legislation is well intentioned in aims of preventing underaged smoking, it is both ambiguous and slightly contradictory in nature.
It doesn't seem too farfetched that young teenagers are more willing to smoke if cigarettes have a flavor label attached to them; after all a strawberry bidi sounds much more enticing than the average flavor-less cigarette.
However, the biggest contradiction comes from the legislation itself, as it calls for a ban on all flavors. All… except the most popular flavor, menthol. The FDA banned every other conceivable flavor ranging from candy, cola, and coffee but not the most smoked flavor and also one of the most harmful additives in cigarettes. If preventing adolescents from smoking at a young age was the intent of the ban, the FDA seems to have missed its mark considering forty-three percent of all smokers between the ages of twelve and seventeen smoke menthol cigarettes as stated by the American Legacy Foundation. While direct speculation cannot be passed on whether the other flavors banned will actually prevent minors from smoking yet, the trend of smoking show that those minors who seek cigarettes at an early age will do so regardless of luring flavors.
What the FDA has forgotten is that smoking is a personal choice for those of age and that government regulation of the ability to choose what flavor a citizen smokes is an infringement on one's rights. Anonymous third year biology major at UIC states, "I think it's hypocritical that we ban flavored cigarettes when there's all this talk about legalizing marijuana. There are far bigger problems in regard to smoking and its regulation, and banning all but the most popular flavor seems illogical."
The greatest ambiguity in banning flavored cigarettes is its new definition. It is now defined as any rolled tobacco product - regardless of the wrapper, in order to prevent tobacco companies from getting around the ban by labeling the product as a flavored cigar and then selling it as a cigarette. The problem with this is that now the FDA has the power to broaden its control of the sale of cigars as well. The weak legislation is too vague in terms of defining what should be banned.
For many non-smokers on campus, myself included, the banning of flavored cigarettes really makes no difference. For legal smokers, it is an infringement upon their right to smoke once legal substances. However, for conscientious citizens who wish to prevent under aged smoking, the FDA's ban is sloppy, vague, and contradictory at best.
Be the first to comment on this story