news-record.com

NEWS

Lorillard sues USDA over new cigarette warnings

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Tobacco companies want a judge to put a stop to new graphic cigarette labels that include the sewn-up corpse of a smoker and pictures of diseased lungs, saying they unfairly urge adults to shun their legal products and will cost millions to produce.

Four of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies sued the federal government Tuesday, saying the warnings violate their free speech rights.

"Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products," the companies wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington.

The companies, led by Winston-Salem-based R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Greensboro-based Lorillard Tobacco Co., said the warnings no longer simply convey facts to allow people to make a decision on whether to smoke. They instead force them to put government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently on their packs than their own brands, the companies say. They want a judge to stop the labels.

The FDA refused to comment, saying the agency does not discuss pending litigation. But when she announced the new labels in June, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called them frank and honest warnings about the dangers of smoking.

The FDA approved nine new warnings to rotate on cigarette packs. They will be printed on the entire top half, front and back, of the packaging. The new warnings also must constitute 20 percent of any cigarette advertising. They also all include a number for a stop-smoking hotline.

One warning label is a picture of a corpse with its chest sewed up and the words: "Smoking can kill you." Another label has a picture of a healthy pair of lungs beside a yellow and black pair with a warning that smoking causes fatal lung disease.

The lawsuit said the images were manipulated to be especially emotional. The tobacco companies said the corpse photo is actually an actor with a fake scar, while the healthy lungs were sanitized to make the diseased organ look worse.

The companies also said the new labels will cost them millions of dollars for new equipment so they can frequently change from warning to warning and designers to make sure the labels meet federal requirements while maintaining some distinction among brands.

Joining R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard in the suit are Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc. Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, is not a part of the lawsuit.

The free speech lawsuit is a different action than a suit by several of the same companies over the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The law, which took affect two years ago, cleared the way for the more graphic warning labels, but also allowed the FDA to limit nicotine. The law also banned tobacco companies from sponsoring athletic or social events and prevented them from giving away free samples or branded merchandise.

A federal judge upheld many parts of the law, but the companies are appealing.
 

Accompanying Photos

Additional Photos

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

NoiseNatzi

August 17, 2011 - 1:56 pm EDT

Get the government out of our personal life! Let people buy want they want to buy and smoke if they want to smoke. Let the parents determine what their children do. Let people jump off a cliff as long as they don’t hit another person on the way down. I think the message of smoking causing human disease is available now. I believe in freedom and survival of the fittest and smartest and lung cancer cures human stupidity!

lskafori

August 18, 2011 - 5:38 am EDT

As an adult, who chooses to smoke, I consider myself intelligent, and informed of the risks, but mostly, I consider myself a "free" individual who exercises my right to partake in a legal, consumable product. As for those who spout the "stupidity" of smokers, how many of you are morbidly obese, but continue to run to the fast food restaurants, order the largest burgers, and largest fries, and then order a diet drink, now THAT is stupidity. As for the ill effects of smoking, I'll take my chances, as well as the chances we all take when we travel on the highways and inhale the "unseen" exhaust emanating from the vehicles in front of us.

I will agree, the government is over-stepping its bounds in many areas. The benefit of living in a "free society" is being able to make choices, good or bad. It's being able to rear our children in a manner we see fit, as working, tax-paying contributors to society. It's about a woman's right to make a determination on whether or not she wants to bring a child into this shallow, self-serving, hypocritical society, without having to, essentially, ask permission, and without having to endure the indignation of listening to the religious psychobabble of those who would rather see women go back in dark alleys to have illegal abortions, than to allow them to keep their privacy and receive proper care, as was afforded them by Roe vs. Wade.

A free society is not allowing our government to erode our personal freedoms in the name of "protecting the public". It's not having a government that is hell-bent on saving us from ourselves, by creating more and more restrictions on society.

Yes, there are many things people do, with which, I, personally, do not agree; however, I am not willing to risk having one freedom removed, from law-abiding citizens, just because I do not agree with the way someone else chooses to live their lives.

Wake up America. As long as we continue to be so petty and complain about legal choices others make, and lobby to have laws changed for our own selfish reasons, we are giving our government all the power it needs to gradually change what was beautiful about this country, its freedom, into a police-run communistic state.

Unfortunately, one day, you, too, will find yourself being denied a personal pleasure, because someone else, didn't think you should be engaging in that activity.

Either you're for freedom of the people, or you're for government control--you can't have it both ways.

What's happened to this country? What happened to "live and let live"? We were once "the land of the free and the home of the brave", but lately we're more like a land full of spoiled, educated, paranoid, petty, selfish and self-righteous wimps, who rely on mass media to dictate our thoughts and actions--mind-control at it's very best.

Theo

August 20, 2011 - 12:22 am EDT

No, I'm sorry...You can't have any type of self control and smoke. I am for limited government but anyone and I mean anyone who smokes should not be allowed on any group insurance program. They should be required to purchase private insurance and pay for their lack of self control.....This goes for any type of self control issues. Smoking is a slow form of suicide and group insurance employees should not have to pay for this serious addiction.
Smokers need to seek professional help!

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search