Obama Administration Appeals Judge's Decision On Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels

* Labels had required graphic images on ads, packages

* Judge had found label requirement unconstitutional

WASHINGTON, March 5 (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday appealed a decision that found unconstitutional a U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation requiring tobacco companies to put large, graphic health warnings on cigarette packages and advertising.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon last week ruled that requiring tobacco companies to use the graphic labels, which included images of rotting teeth and diseased lungs, was a violation of their free-speech rights under the Constitution.

"The government has failed to carry both its burden of demonstrating a compelling interest and its burden of demonstrating that the rule is narrowly tailored to achieve a constitutionally permissible form of compelled commercial speech," Leon said in the Feb. 29 ruling.

He found that the warning labels were too big and that the government has numerous other tools at its disposal to deter smoking, such as raising cigarette taxes or including simple factual information on the labels rather than gruesome images.

The Obama administration on Monday filed its appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Congress passed a law in 2009 ordering the FDA to adopt the label regulation, which requires color warning labels big enough to cover the top 50 percent of a cigarette pack's front and back panels, and the top 20 percent of print advertisements.

The FDA released nine new warnings in June 2011 to go into effect in September 2012, the first change in U.S. cigarette warning labels in 25 years. Cigarette packs already carry text warnings from the U.S. Surgeon General.

Reynolds American Inc's R.J. Reynolds unit, Lorillard Inc, Liggett Group LLC, Commonwealth Brands Inc, which is owned by Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group Plc , and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co Inc challenged the rule, arguing it would force them to engage in anti-smoking advocacy against their own legal products.

Leon granted a stay blocking the rules from taking effect, a decision the Obama administration had already appealed.

The original case was R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 11-cv-1482.

Comments

[Iatros78]

09:03 PM on 03/07/2012

"Picture warnings work

Hard-hitting anti-tobacco advertisements and graphic pack warnings – especially those that include pictures – reduce the number of children who begin smoking and increase the number of smokers who quit.

Studies carried out after the implementation of pictorial package warnings in Brazil, Canada, Singapore and Thailand consistently show that pictorial warnings significantly increase people's awareness of the harms of tobacco use" - The World Health Organization

[eyeforeye42]

05:11 AM on 03/07/2012

I would be in favor of just eliminating nicotine in cigarettes. As the manufacturers say it adds no flavor to the cigarette, I'd be in favor of banning and reducing cigarette taxes as an incentive. How can the manufacturers go wrong - a little higher product cost but then offset by lower government taxes with a net zero loss to the manufacturers. Mind you once nicotine is gone, so to is the addiction and potentially life robbing attributes. But that would be good, wouldn't it?

[bouvdoggie]

01:47 PM on 03/06/2012

The warning labels did not work, More is better? If you are idiotic enough to smoke and kill yourself can you at least let children get an early education about the cosmetic and health issues? If they see enough pictures they might even talk to their parents so everyone's insurance rates will not continue to go up and up and up. We might even eliminate one of those "ups".

[FeelsLikeFrance]

01:14 PM on 03/06/2012

What next? Pictures of a butchered cow on a hamburger wrapper?

[eyeforeye42]

05:14 AM on 03/07/2012

That might not be such a bad idea. People watching the process might be more in tune with what they eat considering this country's climbing obesity rates.

[mclown69]

12:44 PM on 03/06/2012

I don't think they care. They will still smoke and just put their packs in a cigarette case to cover the nasty logo....

[Roger Melvin]

12:16 PM on 03/06/2012

Cigarette do's not kill people i no over 40 people that has not every smoke at all but die with cancer
and never used tobacco. but i know people that die from alcohol and drugs than any any than and i have a friend with cancer that has never used tobacco. but alcohol is whey he has cancer so what kill more people you don't no and no one no's

[Thomas Stieglitz]

12:09 PM on 03/06/2012

Really need this kind of warning however it probably wouldn't dissuade very many from smoking. Has anyone done a financial study of the cost of smokers illnesses/deaths vs. cost of these folks living an extra 20 years on pensions/medicare/social security?