Friday, April 4, 2008
Reynolds Ads Say Tobacco Oversight Is Burden F.D.A. Doesn’t Need
I found this article very, very interesting, especially in light of the conversation this morning about the research conducted at Weil that was indirectly funded by a tobacco company. Furthermore, I am having trouble understanding how the FDA would be able to regulate the tobacco industry, and in addition to this, regulate the content of tobacco products; after all, isn't the "tag-line" of the Food and Drug Administration "protecting and promoting your health"? (check out their website: http://www.fda.gov/) I suppose I can't quite wrap my mind around how they can regulate the content of tobacco products, while still protecting your health--if they went so far as to protect your health, they wouldn't be called tobacco products. In fact, there wouldn't be tobacco products. All in all, there must be much more I need to learn in order to grasp how all of this pieces together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree, Lindsay. Perhaps the FDA intends on regulating tobacco in a way so was to ease it's use in America? Still, either way, that is a another burden for the FDA. And the ad does make a good point--it is doing a lot already. It would just be easier if the problem didn't exist in the first place (if perhaps people could just quit cold turkey). I think the health campaign about how dangerous tobacco products are should be intensified instead of trying to regulate tobacco products at this point.
While it may be true that the FDA's resources will be drawn to thin, regulation of the tobacco industry is, nevertheless, important. Its funny to see how Reynolds is recasting their opposition over stringent regulations as concern the for the efficacy of the FDA. Furthermore,the manuevering of other industry giants to hurt smaller compepitors by support of the FDA regulations, demonstrates how economic, political, and social factors can influence public information regarding health policy.
In an ideal world, yes the FDA wouldn't simply regulate the tobacco industry, but would, as it's motto suggests, get rid of the entire industry all together in order to protect the health of America. However, since we do not live in an ideal world, this bill seems to be a good stepping stone to cutting back on illegal advertising to children and teenagers, laws against which are already in place but not entirely abided by. It will also allow the FDA more say in restricting further proceedings within the tobacco industry, as the last paragraph of the article suggests with banning candy flavored cigarretes. And, overall, aren't these just baby steps in wiping out the tobacco industry all together, maybe not now but sometime in the future?
What I would like to have seen more of in this article is what the purpose of the FDA oversight of the tobacco industry exactly is, other than these few hints we receive. I would like to know examples of the role the FDA would be playing in regulation of tobacco products. Then, as a reader, I feel I would be better informed to judge whether or not this bill should be passed. Since I do not know anything in the matter of the FDA being overstretched and having failed in its primary job already, other than a few drug recalls, I feel that I cannot form a strong opinion in this matter. Is the FDA stretched to far as to completely fail in this new effort to regulate the tobacco industry? I don't know. And this article really hasnt given me any evidence to favor one answer over the other.
Post a Comment