Appeals Court Denies Rehearing on Labels
Feds seeking another try on decision blocking graphic warnings on cigarette packs
Published in CSP Daily News
RICHMOND, Va. -- An appeals court on Wednesday denied the federal government's request to reconsider a decision blocking a requirement that tobacco companies put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show that smoking can disfigure and even kill people, reported the Associated Press.
In its filings, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., did not provide any reason denying the request for the full court or a panel to rehear the case.
In August, a three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling blocking the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) mandate, saying it ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections.
A U.S. Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment. The government has 90 days to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some of the nation's largest tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., sued to block the mandate to include warnings to show the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit lighting up. They argued that the proposed warnings went beyond factual information into anti-smoking advocacy. The government argued the photos of dead and diseased smokers are factual.
The nine graphic warnings proposed by the FDA include color images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat, and a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a mother's kiss. These are accompanied by language that says smoking causes cancer and can harm fetuses. The warnings were to cover the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back, and include the phone number for a stop-smoking hotline, 1-800-QUIT-NOW.
Tobacco companies increasingly rely on their packaging to build brand loyalty and grab consumers--one of the few advertising levers left to them after the government curbed their presence in magazines, billboards and TV.
The appeals court panel in August wrote that the case raises the question of whether the government can force the manufacturer of a product to go beyond making purely factual and accurate disclosures and undermine its own economic interest--in this case, by making "'every single pack of cigarettes in the country [a] mini billboard' for the government's anti-smoking message."
It wrote that the FDA "has not provided a shred of evidence" showing that the warnings will "directly advance" its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke.
But the government argued in its appeal for rehearing that the text of the new warnings are "indisputably accurate" and the format, including the use of graphics, is tailored to the demand of a "market in which the vast majority of users become addicted to a lethal product before age 18."
It also argued that the First Amendment does not require the government to show how one part of a multi-faceted anti-smoking public health campaign directly reduces smoking rates.
Warning labels first appeared on U.S. cigarette packs in 1965, and current warning labels that feature a small box with text were put on cigarette packs in the mid-1980s. Changes to more graphic warning labels that feature color images of the negative effects of tobacco use were mandated in a law passed in 2009 that, for the first time, gave the federal government authority to regulate tobacco.
In recent years, more than 40 countries or jurisdictions have introduced labels similar to those created by the FDA. The World Health Organization (WHO) said in a survey done in countries with graphic labels that a majority of smokers noticed the warnings and more than 25% said the warnings led them to consider quitting.
Joining R.J. Reynolds, owned by Reynolds American Inc., and Lorillard Tobacco, owned by Lorillard Inc., in the lawsuit are Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. Inc.
Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, which makes the top-selling Marlboro brand, is not a part of the lawsuit.
The case is separate from a lawsuit by several of the same tobacco companies over the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act, which cleared the way for the more graphic warning labels and other marketing restrictions. The law also allowed the FDA to limit nicotine and banned tobacco companies from sponsoring athletic or social events or giving away free samples or branded merchandise.
In March, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled that the law was constitutional. The companies in October petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that case.