Tobacco Control

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Tobacco Control 2007;16:275-279; doi:10.1136/tc.2006.019349
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, S. J
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, S. J
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A

SPECIAL COMMUNICATION

Implications of the federal court order banning the terms "light" and "mild": what difference could it make?

Stacey J Anderson1, Pamela M Ling2, Stanton A Glantz3

1 Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
2 Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
3 Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Professor S A Glantz
CTCRE, University of California, Box 1390, 530 Parnassus Avenue, Suite 366, San Francisco, CA 94143–1390, USA; glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler found that the major American tobacco companies violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, defrauding the public by deceptively marketing "light" cigarettes. Judge Kessler’s ruling prohibits the defendant tobacco companies from implying health benefits through using misleading terms such as "light", "mild" or "low-tar", or through other indirect means. This ruling could be interpreted narrowly as simply prohibiting certain words, or could be interpreted broadly as prohibiting implying health benefits by any other means, including colour, numbers or images. It is important to include indirect communications, as tobacco companies easily circumvent narrow advertising bans. A narrow interpretation would be inconsistent with the court’s comprehensive factual findings of fraudulent intent by the industry. A broad interpretation of the Order, including existing brands, line extensions and new tobacco products such as potential reduced exposure products that are marketed as "cigarettes", Judge Kessler’s order could make a substantial contribution to protecting health.


Abbreviations: FDA, Food and Drug Administration; FTC, Federal Trade Commission; PREP, potential reduced exposure product




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Law Med EthicsHome page
R. S. Magnusson
Mapping the Scope and Opportunities for Public Health Law in Liberal Democracies
J. Law Med. Ethics, December 1, 2007; 35(4): 571 - 587.
[PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.