323 



80 



the «1nd of th« reader arises fro* the sum total of not only what is 

 said but also of all that is reasonably implied. Aronberg v. FTC , 

 132 F. 2d 165, 167. (7th Cir. 1942) " See also U.S. v. 

 Article... Sudden Change (supra) In which the Court stated," It is well 

 settled that the intended use of a product may be determined from Its 

 label, accompanying labeling, promotional material, advertising and any 

 other relevant source." 409 F. 2d at 739 



So long as advertising and promotion of cigarettes (whether the level 

 of tar and nlcotlce is low, medium or high) is geared towards "saokin; 

 pleasure" only, cigarettes remain outside the authority of the FDA. 

 But when advertising and promotional activities for certain cigarette 

 products go beyond the promotion of cigarette smoking for purely 

 smoking pleasure and represent. Imply or reasonably give the impression 

 that the Iom tar cigarette being advertised mitigates the normal health 

 risks of smoking while still delivering the same physiological 

 reactions, then the FOA is obliged to step ln and take Jurisdiction. 



Thus petitioner's contentions that low tar and nicotine cigarettes are 

 articles Inttndcd to affect the structure or function of the body are 

 consistent with the FOA's determinations in Action on Smoking and 

 Health, (upheld In ASH v. Hams , 655 Fed 2d 236 O.C. Circuit 1980) 



Another example is provided by FOA's recent response to the introduction 

 of FAVOR cigarettes. On February 9th, 1987, the FOA notified Advanced 

 Tobacco Products, Inc., that FAVOR could not be introduced into Interstate 



