Cigarette Warning Labels: Graphic

The U.S. government is demanding that graphic warning labels it has designed be placed on both the top half of the front and back of packs of cigarettes. In addition, the labels must occupy 20 percent of the space on advertising.

Here are some of the examples the FDA displayed last year:





View the final label designs.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Cigarette makers must add large, graphic warning labels depicting diseased lungs, a man exhaling smoke through a hole in his neck and other images to packaging and advertising in the U.S. by October 2012, government officials said Tuesday.

The nine graphic images—accompanying warning labels with messages such as "Smoking can kill you" and "Cigarettes cause cancer"—are the biggest change to warning labels in more than 25 years. Such warnings were required by a 2009 law that gave the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products.

The supersize labels are the highest-profile part of an intensified war on tobacco by the federal government, which ranks it as the leading cause of preventable and premature death in the U.S., linked to an estimated 443,000 deaths a year. The adult smoking rate of 20.6% in 2009 has remained largely unchanged since 2004, and about 20% of high school students also smoke.

The new color labels must occupy the top half of the front and back of a cigarette pack, and 20% of an ad's space. Other images include a baby near a cloud of smoke, a dead body, and a man wearing a black t-shirt with "I Quit" written across the chest. All labels include the number of a national quit line. Current warning labels, which were put on cigarette packs in the 1980s, are contained in a small box with black and white text warning about the dangers of smoking.

...Reynolds American Inc., Lorillard Inc., Commonwealth Brands Inc. and other tobacco companies sued the FDA in 2009, arguing that the graphic-labeling rule and other marketing provisions in the new federal tobacco law violate their constitutional rights to free speech. Last year, a judge mostly ruled in the government's favor—including on the graphic-labeling rule—but the mixed verdict prompted appeals from both sides.

...How effective the labels are at discouraging smoking remains to be seen. More than 25% of smokers in 13 of 14 countries in a recent survey reported that large, graphic warning labels prompted them to think about quitting, according to results published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a 2001 survey sponsored by the Canadian Cancer Society, 44% of smokers said warning labels increased their motivation to quit. The Institute of Medicine, a U.S. federal advisory body, concluded in a 2007 report that graphic warnings would convey a better understanding of the health risks of smoking and would reduce U.S. consumption.

Who doesn't understand the health risks of smoking?

There is no lack of anti-smoking education. If one is too stupid to know the dangers, I don't know how that person is capable of learning to smoke.

I do think warning labels are appropriate on potentially dangerous products, but the government's new designs are a no-holds-barred assault on the tobacco industry.

Is this the beginning of more government intrusion in private industry? Will the FDA expand its power and design graphic warnings for other potentially harmful products, like FOOD?

Any food consumed in quantities that are extreme can cause serious health consequences.

Consuming too much clear, clean WATER can kill.

Virtually every product has risks. The need for graphic warnings are endless.

Should grills be required to have images similar to the 36 cigarette labels since one consumes carcinogens when eating grilled food?

Should makers of toothpicks be required to have a label that includes graphic pictures of the wooden spikes sticking out of people's eyes?

Should packages of candles for birthday cakes include graphic images of burn victims? HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Make a wish!

Should women's high heel shoes come in boxes with pictures of women with broken bones and deformed feet?

Should children's bikes be required to have stickers depicting dead children, killed in accidents?

Should entrances to playgrounds in parks have large graphic warning signs that show children injured while playing, some paralyzed, some dead?

Should EVERY bottle of wine and spirits have graphic pictures of diseased livers and dying people? Celebrate!

Should EVERY car have images of bloodied bodies on the dashboard and the bumpers?

If the government is to be consistent, yes. If the government's role is to determine the design of labels of private industries' products, then yes.

While I support warning labels and an informed public, I think it's wrong for the government to be in the business of controlling the design of product packages.

What's especially troubling about the cigarette campaign is that it singles out one industry, at least for now.

If the government is truly concerned about public health, then the government must be consistent.

Without question, it must demand that abortion clinics plaster images of dismembered fetuses and the mutilated, murdered bodies of nearly full-term babies on its doors and walls.
______________________

Read Dr. Regina M. Benjamin's take on the issue: New Graphic Warnings Labels: A Step In The Right Direction

As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reminded us, "President Obama is committed to protecting our nation's children and the American people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help. These labels will encourage smokers to quit, and prevent children from smoking. President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation's past, and not our future."

It's for the children.