139 



How is it that a product which is a cause of cancer, cardio- 

 vascular disease, emphysema, stroke, chronic obstructive lung dis- 

 ease, premature births, osteoporosis and is addictive virtually un- 

 regulated at the Federal level of government in the way in which 

 it is manufactured, distributed, sold, labeled, advertised, and pro- 

 moted? 



Part of the reason lies with Congress' mistake and failure in 

 1964 to give the FDA the authority it needed even back then to 

 regulate tobacco as a significant public health problem. It also 

 stems in large measure from the tobacco industry's continued as- 

 surances to Congress and the American public that it was a re- 

 sponsible industry that would do the right thing if it were proven 

 that smoking caused disease. 



The promises and assurances that the industry made to the 

 American public as far back as 1950, that it would put public 

 health above all corporate interests were nothing but public rela- 

 tions ploys designed to buy the industry time to find ways to keep 

 its products on the market. 



What other industry could or would have in spite of 23 Surgeon 

 General reports and over 60,000 scientific studies continued to sell 

 addictive killer virtually unfettered from government oversight and 

 regulation? In 1988 the Coalition on Smoking OR Health, after tak- 

 ing a careful look at the history of how tobacco products are regu- 

 lated, realized that the Food and Drug Administration and the act 

 that that administration implements could be applied against to- 

 bacco products under certain circumstances. 



It became clear to us that if and when the tobacco industry sold 

 its products with the intent of mitigating or preventing disease or 

 with the intent to affect function or structure of the body, that the 

 industry was no longer selling merely tobacco products, they were 

 in the business of selling drugs. 



Based on this analysis, the Coalition filed a petition with the 

 FDA seeking to classify all low tar and low nicotine cigarettes as 

 drugs under that act. Last spring the coalition contracted with a 

 Gallop organization to determine what the public's perceptions 

 were about these products. 



When we asked what message the industry was trying to get 

 across by using such terms as low tar, low nicotine or low yield, 

 two-thirds of those surveyed believed that the products were in 

 some way safer and less addictive. 



The tobacco industry manufactures and the public buys these 

 cigarettes for an overwhelming reason that they believe these prod- 

 ucts are safer. These products are in our view drugs under the 

 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. 



Since we filed that petition seeking to classify all low tar, low 

 nicotine cigarettes as arugs, additional evidence has come to light 

 that we believe justifies the FDA taking jurisdiction over all ciga- 

 rette products under the act. 



Documents released as part of the Cipollone liability have given 

 us a glimpse into the industry's past and present practices. These 

 documents have pointed to the fact that even before 1964, the in- 

 dustry was investing millions and millions of dollars into develop- 

 ing highly technical products, products which indeed are drugs. Are 

 we surprised by these revelations? Not really. 



