HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

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

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

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:

				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]