Is the FDA regulation the best thing for public health?
Dr. Michael Siegel, a public health specialist at the University of Boston, wrote an editorial to challenge the merits of the FDA regulation. His points blast the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids and make a great deal of sense as the United States’ largest tobacco company is in favour of the FDA regulation and the bill; as we know, when the tobacco companies are involved, there has to be something in it for them. As with any piece of legislation Dr Siegel suggests all public policy should ask:
But what difference does this make? How does it change anything? How does it contribute in any way to the protection of the public’s health?
In his criticism, Dr Siegel concludes:
The bill’s basic problem is that it creates the appearance of regulation without allowing actual regulation. Take the issue of cigarette flavorings. Under the bill, most flavorings — including chocolate, cherry, strawberry, banana and pineapple — would be banned. But not menthol. Yet of all the cigarette flavorings, only menthol is actually being used by cigarette companies, and evidence suggests that it helps entice and addict young people, especially African Americans.
Perhaps most absurd is the bill’s treatment of new and potentially safer products, such as electronic cigarettes. The evidence is still out on whether electronic cigarettes, which deliver nicotine with water vapor rather than smoke, would actually help wean people from tobacco cigarettes. But why would Congress want to ban potentially safer products and continue to allow the deadliest nicotine product (conventional cigarettes) to remain on the market?
During the previous administration, the FDA was accused of making decisions based on politics, not health. If the Senate passes the FDA tobacco legislation, it will be institutionalizing, rather than ending, the triumph of politics over science in federal policymaking. This is not the way to restore science to its rightful place.
