342 



- 99 



to health.* Low tar and nicotine cigarette products clearly fall 

 within these categories. It Is because these products are distinctly 

 dangerous to health that FDA has even a higher responsibility to take 

 action. He are not dealing with a product which has no adverse health 

 effects and Is being advertlsled as a beneficial product. This is a 

 product that is responsible for one out of every six deaths In the 

 United States. Is highly addictive. Is readily available, and which Is 

 aggressively advertised and promoted. It Is Ironic enough that this 

 product which kills and debilitates, is also the least regulated 

 product In the UnUed States. Petitioners do not contest that when 

 advertisements for the products are alned at smoking pleasure only , the 

 FOA has no Jurisdiction. This has been clearly spelled out by the 

 courts and the legislative history. But equally clear Is that the FDA 

 does have the authority to regulate cigarette products when those 

 advertisements and promotions 'suggest, imply or insinuate* that a 

 health benefit, or a risk reduction can be obtained by smoking a 

 particular brand. 



Petitioners tra not denying the legal rights of tobacco companies to 

 sell their products but we believe those rights are contingent upon the 

 public's right to be protected to the maximum extent possible from 

 products deemed to be harmful. Enforcement of the Food Drug and 

 Cosmetic Act against the advertising and promotion of low tar and 

 nicotine cigarettes, therefore Is essential. As we noted earlier, what 

 was said by District Judge Meaney in a case in which FOA was found to 

 have Jurisdiction over cigarettes, remains the standard today: 



