General Health

General health issues, Medical conditions, Research and studies and more

Mental Health

Natural Medicine

Nutritional supplements, Herbs, Alternative medicine and more…

Wellness & Lifestyle

Nutrition, Diets, Healthy living, Detox, Exercise and Physical Fitness, Sports Fitness and more…

Women’s Health

Relationships, Pregnancy, Birth control, Menopause and more

Home » News

Stanford chair of otolaryngology discusses federal court’s ruling on graphic cigarette labels

Article / Review by on March 2, 2012 – 5:51 pmNo Comments

Stanford chair of otolaryngology discusses federal court’s ruling on graphic cigarette labels

Stanford chair of otolaryngology discusses federal court’s ruling on graphic cigarette labels

Earlier this week, a federal judge declared unconstitutional new rules that would have required tobacco companies to display graphic images on packs of cigarettes.

At issue were regulations published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year mandating tobacco companies affix large warning labels to cigarette packages, cartons and advertising. The labels, which are meant to shock consumers and dissuade them from smoking, include images such as a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole.

When I read about the ruling, I contacted Stanford Chair of Otolaryngology Robert Jackler, MD, whose ongoing research into the history of tobacco company advertising has resulted in several published studies, to get his thoughts. He responded:

Judge Leon’s decision states that the graphic images mandated by the FDA are “neither factual nor accurate.” However, it is an indisputable fact that smoking causes an enormous toll of both disease and death – indeed it is the leading cause of preventable death in America. It is hard to imagine what logic could consider a visual depiction of tobacco caused diseases such as lung cancer and heart attack anything but factual and accurate. The images resonate with my first hand experience as a physician and, no doubt, that of innumerable families whose loved ones have suffered the tragedy of tobacco caused disease.

Judge Leon ruled the graphic warning “unconstitutionally compelling speech.” Using this logic, does he advocate banning the skull and crossbones traditionally placed on deadly poisons and replace if with a small and inconspicuous typeface placed discretely on the side of the bottle? The fact that text warnings are notably less effective than visually striking ones is the reason that the tobacco industry prefers them. Over 40 countries around the world require large, visually compelling, graphic warning on tobacco products often using imagery considerably more striking than those adopted by the FDA.

Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which assigned oversight of tobacco to the FDA. In Sec. 201 it states: Cigarette package health warnings will be required to cover the top 50 percent of both the front and rear panels of the package, and the nine specific warning messages must rotate randomly over the course of the year. These messages must be accompanied by color graphics showing the negative health consequences of smoking cigarettes.


By Lia Steakley
Stanford University Medical Center


Photo by C.K. Koay


* Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions – Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital.

**  The above story is adapted from materials provided by Stanford University School of Medicine


More about Stanford University

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>